Jump to content

Grants:PEG/WM DE/Wikimedia Conference 2015/Report

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Wikimedia Conference 2015 from above
Report accepted
This report for a Project and Event grant approved in FY 2014-15 has been reviewed and accepted by the Wikimedia Foundation.
  • You may still comment on this report on its discussion page, or visit the discussion page to read the discussion about this report.
  • You are welcome to Email grants at wikimedia dot org at any time if you have questions or concerns about this report.

Compliance and completion

Did you comply with the requirements specified by WMF in the grant agreement?
Is your project completed?
NO (The event itself is completed, Program and Engagement Coordination still ongoing)
Did you use any of the grant funds?

Activities and lessons learned


This section describes what the grantee did, and what the grantee learned from implementing the project. This section should be useful to others implementing similar projects and is an opportunity for the grantee to reflect on the project's performance.


Important short facts of the Wikimedia Conference 2015
Provide a detailed list of activities performed to complete this project, descriptions of these activities, and the amount of time spent on each activity. This section should also include a list of participants, or a link to pictures, blog posts, or videos from the project or event.

Activities Program and Engagement Coordinator


The following section provides a brief overview of the tasks which were executed by the Program and Engagement Coordinator (PEC) from April 1 until June 30, 2015. Detailed information on the time spent on each activity can be retrieved from the timeline (see subsequent paragraph). Please note that the PEC will provide a further report on his efforts in September.

In the first two weeks, the Program and Engagement Coordinator engaged thoroughly in developing the project management plan for the Program and Engagement Coordination, including preparation, accompaniment and support (during the conference), documentation, post-processing, evaluation and follow-up of the conference.

Right from the start, the PEC supported the volunteer program team of the Wikimedia Conference. The volunteer program team was composed of 12 persons with different backgrounds and started its work in November 2014. The team chose topics to address at the Conference and gathered ideas of suitable activities and session formats to discuss and work on these topics. It was helpful for the outcomes of the team that a few individual members brought their their topics into the agenda. Those members ensured that the speakers were briefed properly and that their session was well described and prepared.

Starting in April, the PEC supported the program team in developing goals and contents for the 29 conference sessions. Together with the team, the PEC finalized the program and built the whole schedule for the conference. And important task was also to support the team in finding the right speakers for each sessions and liaise with them.

Beside developing the program, another important task was liaising with the two facilitators, Anna Lena Schiller and Andreas Karsten. Both gave valuable input for an outcome and goal oriented session design. They helped to take the right steps to prepare a good documentation of the conference and advised the PEC during the content and program design process. The PEC developed an own documentation process design and looked for volunteers from the German community to support him in documenting the conference. In the two weeks before the Conference, the PEC also communicated with all session hosts and participants to inform them properly and enable them to come prepared.

At the Wikimedia Conference itself, the PEC took care of all things necessary around the program, which included providing all participants with program related information, supporting session leads in all their needs and, together the volunteers, documenting all sessions.

After the conference, the PEC processed and completed the documentation of all sessions. He gathered all photos, notes taken by the volunteers and flip-charts of the sessions. He wrote extensive summaries of the sessions, which included next steps and points of contact. Additionally, he collected additional input and feedback from the speakers for the documentation and asked for approval of the summaries. Four weeks after the conference, the PEC published the documentation on Meta. With great support by Christof Pins, Program Monitoring & Evaluation staff member at Wikimedia Deutschland, the PEC evaluated the post-survey that was sent to all participants of the conference. An extensive and visually appealing report was was published on July 9 on Meta (see the evaluation of the survey here).

For the first time in the history of the WMCON, ensuring a follow-up was defined as an essential step of the overall plan: As envisaged in the Program and Engagement Coordination concept, the ongoing engagement of the conference participants was crucial for the sustainability and outcome orientation of the conference. All speakers were encouraged to name further steps for their sessions. The PEC gathered and categorized these by the main topics of the conference and published an overview on Meta.

To further encourage participants to work on these topics, the PEC is organizing a “WMCON Follow-Up Day” as a pre-conference day at Wikimania 2015 in Mexico City. WMCON participants and further interested people are invited to discuss important topics of the Wikimedia Conference in at least five different sessions. This provides the opportunity to come together again and share what happened in the meantime, to identify and solve potential blockers and to recruit more contributors for each topic. It is also an ideal way for the “thematic ambassadors” to keep the motivation for topics alive and to plan next steps. Another opportunity to continue this work will be the WMCEE meeting in Estonia in September 2015. Contact between the organisers and the PEC has already been established and WMDE shared some basic information around how we have handled the program design process in the past.

With the new three-year perspective, WMDE can take the lead in facilitating this new approach: Ideally, the engagement of participants and ambassadors is kept at a healthy level throughout the year. Other tools like meetups, group video chats, conferences or online consultations can help to further develop each topic in Q3 and Q4 2015. Supporting the coordination of these follow-ups and ensuring that threads do not get lost in the months in between conferences is also a task on the list of responsibilities for the PEC. All the productive conversations and eventual outcomes achieved will influence this process and will lead to an improved program. This process needs to be kicked off in autumn 2015. Only an early start allows for improvements and proper involvement and preparation of all participants. This is why WMDE is aiming for a registration in late 2015 already.

Please note that the funding for the PEC ends on September 30, 2015. WMDE will enter conversations with the WMF Community Resources Team to discuss option for an extended funding.

Activities Event and Logistics Coordinator


The following section provides a brief overview of the tasks, which were executed by the Event and Logistics Coordinator in the realm of the Wikimedia Conference from the beginning of January to the end of June. Detailed information on the time spent on each activity can be retrieved from the timeline, which is provided in the subsequent paragraph.

Wikimedia Deutschland has a professional event team on site, which is already experienced in organizing the Wikimedia Conference as well as other events. The role of the Event and Logistics Coordinator was to successfully plan, organize, implement as well as to follow-up on the Wikimedia Conference and the fringe events such as Pre-Conference Workshops, AffCom, FDC and ED meeting.

From the kickoff to final reporting the responsibility lay with the management of the logistics around the conference, detailed planning and the liaison with the WMF travel department, the Program and Engagement Coordinator as well as external vendors. Communication management such as creating and updating Meta, sending information to participants and creating a conference guide became a crucial subject of the coordinator.

The Event and Logistics Coordinator also took care of the cost management, which encompassed planning on the budget, expenses tracking, processing invoices, and budget reporting. Important key task also entailed participant management (inviting attendees, coordinating travel and hotel bookings, helping with visas and interacting with participants etc.) as well as the management of the venue and other service providers (research, inquiry to select appropriate vendors, contract negotiation, contracting and coordinating them before, during and after the event etc.).

It was of utmost importance for the event team to create a welcoming and pleasant atmosphere to ensure a great conference experience for all participants. Responding to their needs, caring about every question or problem and trying to solve them as good as possible was a crucial field of duty of the project partners.

To conclude, all activities were dedicated to facilitate the logistics behind the event and to support the program team and participants as good as possible, in order to enable them to fully immerse into the conference and to concentrate on the conference goals and topics.

Overview Activities


The subsequent timeline provides a detailed overview on the time spent on each activity by the Program and Engagement Coordinator as well as Event and Logistics Coordinator.

List of Participants
see here Wikimedia Conference 2015/Participants
Documentation and Follow-Up
An overview of the documentation of all sessions held at the Wikimedia Conference 2015, follow-ups and next steps for the main conference topics can be found here: Wikimedia Conference 2015/Documentation and Follow-Up
Further Impressions
You can find a current overview of all reports and blog posts at the Wikimedia Conference meta page, among them are:
Pictures of the Conference can be found via this link
Category:Wikimedia Conference 2015
See here for facebook page
See here for twitter

Lessons learned


What lessons were learned that may help others succeed in similar projects? Consider the following questions and respond with 1 - 2 paragraphs.


What went well?

1. Introduction of the Program and Engagement Coordination

WMDE introduced the role of the Program and Engagement Coordinator for the first time and this concept has proven to be very valuable throughout the whole process. Despite the fact that the PEC started only six weeks before the Conference, he took over the main responsibility for creating a coherent, intensive and qualitatively good program for the conference, based on the input the program team provided.

2. Focus on sustainability and outcome orientation

Thanks to the expert input by the two facilitators, the session design was improved compared to 2014, especially regarding the focus on sustainability and outcome orientation. All speakers were encouraged to work on their session topics beyond the conference itself and to prepare further steps for each session. This laid a good fundament to work on and follow-up each topic.

3. Improvement of documentation quality

The documentation quality also benefited from the introduction of the PEC – a dedicated person who had “budgeted” sufficient time for an extensive documentation which went way beyond last year’s transcripts. Thanks to the work of the documentation volunteers and the valuable input by several speakers, almost every session has an extensive and speaker-approved summary. Now, every participant or other interested people can reference to and work on the WMCON topics.

4. A new follow-up process

For the first time in the history of the WMCON and due to new the long-term perspective, a follow-up process has been developed and is currently taking up speed. The PEC communicates with the movement public and makes the next steps visible. The WMCON Follow-Up Day at the Wikimania 2015 will be a major  prove of his concept.

5. Everybody at one conference

Organizers and participants alike were delighted to see several members of the WMF board and staff as well as from the FDC and AffCom join the conference. The broad participation of these groups vitally contributed to the diversity of perspectives in the program and ongoing conversations. Additionally, it was a unique chance for many affiliate representatives to meet and discuss topics face to face. These groups’ attendance is more than essential to improve the relationships and trust among different stakeholders and we hope to be able to welcome them again in the coming years.

6. Social events are important

WMDE experienced that the social events, which were hosted on three evenings at the WMDE office and one night outside the office were hailed as success. Participants appreciated to have a particular place they could go to to meet and mingle with the other participants. Thus, they could seize the opportunity to continue to exchange and discuss around certain topics in an informal, familiar and relaxed setting after the official program.

What did not go well? What would you do differently if you planned a similar project?

1. More clarity on mandate and responsibilities

The mandate and responsibilities between the program team and WMDE were not clearly defined, partly due to the fact that WMDE only took over being the conference host in January 2015, after the original host pulled out. Without having the PEC step in and finalize the program, there would not have been a complete schedule two weeks prior to the conference. Also, the facilitators were not involved early enough to provide an external view and consultation. Next year, we aim for an earlier publication to allow comprehensive preparation of all conference participants as well as a better link to and earlier involvement of the facilitators. To make the process more effective, we need to rethink and clarify the roles and responsibilities, for example regarding the collection of input from the community, the size, support and lead of the program team as well as the overall effectiveness and long-term impact of the process.

2. Clearly defined tracks

Despite efforts to provide sessions for every level of experience and publishing the audience/target groups of each session, there were still claims of missing differentiation between experienced/advanced and new participants or between staff and volunteer audience. In the future, we need to make it clearer who is the audience/target group of each session and to divide the program in several tracks (thematically as well as regarding the level of experience) more strictly than it was this year or to probably even create separate events.

3. More effective and focused sessions.

Session length and formats were also an area of critique we heard from several participants. Sessions would have been more fruitful and effective if their length would have been adjusted to their content. Presentations of 120 minutes were seen as excessive by some participants, while other session that went more into detail and offered a space for extensive discussions were over before the topic was conclusively discussed. If a session is 30, 60, 120 or even a whole day long, should primarily depend on the content, level of participation and expected outcomes and not contingent on scheduling comforts.

4. Better communication between presenters and notetakers

Although we made huge progress with regards to the documentation process, it was still not perfect. In some cases, important details were lacking from the notes or volunteers did not have the necessary knowledge to be able to document the whole session or to set the right focus while taking notes. For next year, the PEC will gather further input on how to improve the process, especially regarding a better preparation of the volunteers or widening the search for volunteers from the international communities. What also turned out to be somewhat less than perfect was the on-site communication between the presenters and notetakers/photo capturers. In future years, we will make sure to clarify towards the speakers what will be captured and support notetakers to know where to go for capturing support.

5. More facilitated social activities and moments of sharing

Although we offered a lot of space for social activities (warm-up, breaks, evenings at WMDE, contact wall, thematic meet-ups, etc.), the survey showed that people still long for more socialising and sharing opportunities. We acknowledge the fact that face-to-face conversations are crucial for creating a more welcoming and fair online environment which can lead to increased motivation and participation in the movement. In the following years, we are aiming for more facilitated and program related social activities for newcomers and long-timers alike.

What went well?

1. Collaboration with WMF departments

After having determined the location for the event for the next couple of years together with the WMF, WMDE could smoothly start off with planning and organizing, due to the good agreements and allocation of tasks. From the start of writing the grant proposal and setting up the budget to the completion of the project, the staff from the Community Resources department provided helpful guidance and consultation.
Moreover, WMDE highly appreciated being supported by the travel booking of the participants by the WMF travel department and being able to the fall back on the experience of this team. In particular the short communication paths between the different departments during the whole planning phase enhanced the good collaboration between all project partners. Moreover, the partner-like, collaborative and constructive working manner was very valuable and is desirable to be alike in the following years.

2. Interdepartmental collaboration

The core WMDE conference team, consisted of staff members from two departments, namely International Relations and Event Management. On top of that, the conference team was supported by other in-house departments, such as the Office, Partnerships & Development and the Communications department. Furthermore, the whole conference offered a great opportunity for WMDE to learn and share with the movement.
Clarifying the nature of cooperation and responsibility from the beginning, guaranteed a sound basis for the good collaboration. Assembling staff members with different strengths, competencies and background knowledge in one team was favorable.
Hosting recurrent meetings, exchanging about the progress, ideas and issues during all project stages was fundamental. Working all together at the same office was very advantageous in this regard as the communication paths were really short.

3. Working structures and organizational experience

Although WMDE had a shorter lead time for planning and organizing the Wikimedia Conference in comparison to the last years, the project team managed to successfully complete all tasks in time and achieved a satisfactory result in terms of participants contentedness and overall outcome of the conference. Taking the feedback from previous conferences into account helped to continuously improve the conference and to increasingly respond to the needs and expectations of the participants.

4. Existing network of service providers

Having established a network of service providers WMDE already worked with was very valuable. By hiring familiar service providers (e.g. Tagesspiegel as conference venue) costs could be saved as well as risk of failure could be diminished as the contractors know the organization and the event. A sound basis for negotiation could be established through the prospect of hosting the conference through 2017 in Berlin.

5. Choice of hosting city

WMDE experienced that hosting the conference a few years in a row in the same city, was appreciated by the affiliates. Knowing the city from previous stays reduced the anxiety of travelling to Berlin, moving around in the city and easily reaching the places they were supposed to go to. This enabled participants to better focus on the content and to immerse into the conference.

6. Location of venues

WMDE learned that the short walking distance from the hotel to the conference venue, WMDE office and the venue for the social event on Saturday was appreciated by the conference participants. Besides, choosing a hotel in a safe, touristy and attractive area of the city increased the safety and comfort factor of the participants. On top of that, accommodating all participants in one hotel was very favourable as it stimulated the cohesiveness and exchange between the participants. In view of these facts, WMDE endeavors to also find a hotel for the next years, which can accommodate everybody under one roof and is nearby all other facilities.

7. Seizing the Wikimedia Conference platform for side events

Using the Wikimedia Conference as platform for side events (AffCom, FDC and ED meeting) and pre-conference workshops turned out to be very successful. As WMDE already had reserved the conference venue and got offered a flat rate rent for five days, the side events could be hosted without paying any extra fee. Beyond that, WMDE has an on-site event venue and event team, which allowed to easily host the FDC meeting there without paying rent and high personnel costs. Hosting the AffCom, FDC and ED meeting around the Wikimedia Conference date, also diminishes travel time and costs.
Besides, it increases the likelihood that the conference is attended by FDC and AffCom members.

8. Social events

WMDE intended to offer a high level of service, to enable a pleasant stay in Berlin and to keep the costs for the participants at a minimum. Therefore, they were offered full board (breakfast, lunch, dinner snacks) so they did not necessarily had to search and pay for restaurants. Besides, the social events were hosted to provide one common meeting spot for all participants to mingle and exchange after the conference program. That is why the organizing team tried to create a welcoming and pleasant atmosphere for everyone. For those, people who were interested in conversations and meeting people, large tables were provided to sit at together. For those people, who preferred to relax, back out and enjoy a quiet dinner, comfortable sitting areas in a smaller room were provided. As the social event was hosted three nights at the venue of WMDE, no extra rental costs were incurred and organizational efforts could be kept at a minimum.
To conclude, WMDE wished to offer a high comfort standard and keep the costs for the stay to a minimum for the participants.

What did not go well? What would you do differently if you planned a similar project?

1. Communication of eligibility criteria

Receiving a few invalid registrations, we figured that the eligibility criteria would have need to be more extensively described and communicated.
Starting with the announcement of the criteria earlier in the next year increasingly enables affiliates to comply with them. On top of that, WMDE will also include the criteria from the beginning in the registration form and elaborate more on them in order to avoid misunderstandings.

2. Visa application support

A few affiliates had to cancel their attendance on short notice as they did not receive their visa in time or their visa application got refused. Consequently, flights and accommodation bookings had to be countermanded.
Announcing the date for WMCON16 as well as opening the registration earlier and offering an extended registration period, enables affiliations to better plan ahead and get the visa in time. Moreover, the organizing team has the chance to better react in case of a visa refusal and get in touch with the embassy. To increase the chance of issuing a visa, WMDE will send the participants list to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which will then inform their respective embassies. This should improve the overall visa approval process. In addition, reminders alerting attention to starting early with the visa application, will be sent out to participants in need of a visa.

3. Budget estimation

Generally, WMDE managed to stay within the given budget, which was requested in the grant proposal. Nevertheless, WMDE did not include some costs (e.g. halal/kosher catering) or calculated on the basis of less participants (visa costs, catering etc.). These aspects will be considered and included in the next grant proposal.

4. Collaboration and agreements between project partners

As aforementioned, the collaboration between the different project partners was satisfactory. Nevertheless, there are a few aspects, which should be increasingly considered and paid attention to in the next years.
As two separate registration forms for the Wikimedia Conference and the Evaluation & Design Pre-Conference Workshop were provided, some delegates got confused and did not register for the pre-conference workshop as they thought that signing up via the WMCON registration form is enough. Consequently, they could not attend the Pre-Conference Workshop. On top of that, two different participants lists were kept and extra work was necessary to compile the two lists. This extra effort could have been avoided by creating one registration form.
The reason for the lack of compliance, surely occurred due to the shorter lead time for planning the event. By hosting a kick-off meeting with the project partners at an early stage, by agreeing on joint communication strategies and platforms, by exploring strategies on how to work together and build synergies, one could eliminate the aforementioned issues. Creating together one consistent registration form is of utmost importance to prevent confusion amongst participants and to avoid extra work.

Overall Conclusion on Lessons Learned


As a general consequence we are discussing to kick off of the project, the relevant processes as well as the involvement of the participants at an earlier stage in comparison to this year. The following (still very rough!) timeline is envisaged for hosting the Wikimedia Conference from April 20-24, 2016:

Project goal and measures of success


This section should reference the project goals and measures of success described in the approved grant submission. See Grants:PEG/WM DE/Wikimedia Conference 2015 to review the goals and metrics listed in the approved submission.

Project goal

Provide the project goal here.
In the past, the Wikimedia Conference itself has always been a kind of monolith, a one-shot instead of being an episode in a series for the Wikimedia movement. As the mandate to organize the conference has previously been assigned from year to year, there has never been a link between each conference. In the previous years, participants were hardly able to get a profound understanding of the conference goals and topics. Instead, they focussed on exhausting discussions around the hosting and logistics. They were not aware of what was expected from them and what kind of preparation and participation was suitable for certain sessions and decisions. Participants were not encouraged to preparatory discuss conference topics inside their organizations to form opinions and to get the appropriate mandate to decide on certain issues as an official delegate. Decision making processes were slow, non-existent or became inefficient. Activity literally just died on Sunday afternoon, after the last participant had left the conference venue. In the end, no one felt responsible for post-processing the results and keeping the conversations alive.
This changes for the first time, as the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Deutschland jointly agreed on WMDE being the host for the conferences in 2015, 2016 and 2017. As of now, the conferences can be organized with a long-term perspective regarding logistics and contents, with specific goals and with proper involvement of all affected parties. For the first time, there will be a dedicated staff member/contractor (“Program and Engagement Coordinator”) whose task it will be to establish a facilitated and supported engagement process about the conference’s topics before and after the conference. This includes preparation, wrap-ups and post-processing of conversations and decision-making processes of conference topics. Our goal is to secure sustainable involvement of key movement stakeholders as well as to build bridges to future events (esp. Wikimania). Additionally, venues and accommodation and further organizational matters can be kept at lower price, by ideally cooperating with the same service providers through 2017 and negotiating on three year contracts.
Did you achieve your project goal? How do you know your goal was achieved? Please answer in 1 - 2 paragraphs.
Based on our experiences and learnings so far, we did achieve the main goal of the Wikimedia Conference: to make it more productive and sustainable. For the first time, next steps were defined and published and thematic ambassadors took the lead for certain topics. The WMCON Follow-Up Day at Wikimania will provide space to tackle further issues to develop the topics and lay the ground for the next conference’ program. However, we cannot yet measure whether we have met our project goal entirely, as it  is a long-term goal. The aim to make the Wikimedia Conference more sustainable, to build bridges between the conferences as well as to involve key stakeholders in the long-run, can be fully measured the earliest in September/next year. It is of utmost priority for the Program and Engagement Coordinator to pursue this goal and to reflect on the development within a separate report.
From the logistics’ side, we have achieved the project goal entirely. Thanks to the enormous efforts of the WMDE Event Team we have ensured that all conference locations (WMDE office, hotel, conference venue, party location) were in walking distance. An outstanding achievement for WMDE was also the negotiated price for the conference venue (actual rent costed one fourth of the list price) and the fairly relationship to the contractor (interest in the conference and hosting the conference again at their venue). Moreover, the participant rate increased in comparison to last year. On top of that, the no show rate was very low. Only a few participants had to cancel their attendance due to visa issues or illness. With a longer lead time between the registration period and the event date, the risk of visa refusal can be anticipated and diminished.

Measures of success

List the measures of success exactly as provided in the approved grant submission, and evaluate your project according to each measure listed there.
Please see also the evaluation of the participants' survey
Overall, the conference received slightly better results ..
than 2014 (see here for the results of 2014)
General assessment: 57 % excellent, 40 % good, 2 % poor, 1 % very poor
# Measure (as proposed in the grant) Results according to our survey Compliance
1 80% of participants approved that the conference improved the understanding of grants, fundraising and finances in the Wikimedia movement. 24 % strongly agree, 61 % agree ( = 85 %) Complied
2 80% of participants approved that the conference contributed to reaching a shared understanding of the movement’s strategy 30 % strongly agree, 46 % agree ( = 76 %) Not complied, explanation see below
3 80% of participants approved that the conference made satisfactorily clear the significance of sharing and collaboration in the Wikimedia movement 51 % strongly agree, 43 % agree ( = 94 %) Complied
4 80% of participants approved that the conference’s capacity building workshops helped to improve the common knowledge and capacities. n/a Explanation see below
5 80% of participants were satisfied with selection of topics. 27 % strongly agree, 54 % agree ( = 81 %) Complied
6 80% of participants were satisfied with quality of contributions. 27 % strongly agree, 59 % agree ( = 86 %) Complied
7 80% of participants were satisfied with communication from program team before conference. 47 % strongly agree, 38 % agree ( = 85 %) Complied
8 80 % of the participants could satisfactory seize the conference to share knowledge with other Wikimedians 66 % strongly agree, 32 % agree ( = 97 %) Complied
9 80 % of the participants could satisfactory seize the conference to gain knowledge from other Wikimedians 70 % strongly agree, 27 % agree ( = 97 %) Complied
10 80 % of the participants could satisfactory seize the conference to better understanding of each others views. 54 % strongly agree, 41 % agree ( = 95 %) Complied
11 80% of participants were satisfied with communication from organizers before the conference. 70 % strongly agree, 25 % agree ( = 95 %) Complied
12 80% of participants were satisfied with support from organizers during the conference. 86 % strongly agree, 12 % agree ( = 98 %) Complied
13 80% of participants were satisfied with the conference venue. 75 % strongly agree, 23 % agree ( = 98 %) Complied
14 80% of participants were satisfied with accommodation. 75 % strongly agree, 20 % agree ( = 95 %) Complied
15 80% of participants were satisfied with social events. 50 % strongly agree, 44 % agree ( = 94 %) Complied
16 In the time between the conference and September 30, 2015, there is a continuous exchange about at least 3 major topics of the Wikimedia Conference 2015 (e.g. in working groups, discussions, special events etc.). Not measurable yet n/a
17 30% of the 2015 conference participants engage in the structured follow-up process 6 months after the conference. Engaging means participation in working groups, discussions, special events etc. Not measurable yet n/a
18 Topics of the Wikimedia Conference have a continuance at the Wikimania in a dedicated track or space (as qualified by dedicated Wikimania sessions, participation of 2015 conference participants at the dedicated sessions, etc.); this might be applied to other subsequent conferences as well. Not measurable yet n/a
19 For Wikimedia Conference 2016: minimum 50% of the 2016 program activities pursue major topics of the 2015 conference or build upon related outcomes/ follow-up work of the 2015 conference. Not measurable yet n/a
20 50 % of the 2015 conference topics lead to concrete outcomes (e.g. documented next steps or wrap ups, learning patterns, established working groups, continued discussions, joined activities, binding decisions) -- either at the conference itself or between the 2015 and 2016 conference Not measurable yet n/a
21 50 % of the 2015 conference topics lead to concrete outcomes (e.g. documented next steps or wrap ups, learning patterns, established working groups, continued discussions, joined activities, binding decisions) -- either at the conference itself or between the 2015 and 2016 conference Not measurable yet n/a
22 At the 2016 conference minimum 80% of participants which have also attended the 2015 conference report that the 2015 conference led to tangible outcomes for their work. Not measurable yet n/a

Provide an overall assessment of how your project went according to these measures.

Following the evaluation of our survey among conference participants, we have entirely met almost all the measures of success we have stated in our grant proposal. Especially, the logistics part of the conference received the same high ratings (or even higher) as in 2014. The measures regarding program and content also exceeded the ratings of last year’s conference.  Concluding and according to our measures, the Wikimedia Conference 2015 was a great success, from participants’ as well as from organizers’ side.
We have not met one of our measure of success (“80% of participants approved that the conference contributed to reaching a shared understanding of the movement’s strategy”), as only 76 % of the participants approved this statement. The program team, which developed the conference program, decided not to cover the movement’s strategy as intensively as we had expected when writing the grant proposal. Additionally, there is a general lack of clarity around the movement’s strategy. We conclude these two points are to be considered reflecting this measure of success.
While planning the feedback survey we noted that one of our proposed measures (“80% of participants approved that the conference’s capacity building workshops helped to improve the common knowledge and capacities.”) was not fully aligned to the actual content of the conference program. There were only a few sessions which had a clear capacity building focus and these were only attended by some of the conference participants. We were not able to target only these participants for the overall survey, so we decided to skip this question. However, in the the overall survey, 100% of the participants approved that the conference “provided useful information for me and my organization”.
As the project is not finished yet–the Program and Engagement Coordinator’s efforts continue after the conference–not all measures of success are measurable yet (measure of success #16-22). The PEC will publish a further report on his efforts in September 2015.

If you were to plan a similar project, would you measure it differently? If yes, please explain how.

Generally, we are convinced to have chosen a good mix of quantitative and qualitative metrics, which will lead the way to actually see whether our project was successful or not.
For the next Wikimedia Conference, we would use the same or similar metrics, especially to have comparable results. Regarding the program-related metrics the actual wording may change, as they depend on the actual program of the conference.



This section ties this project to Wikimedia's broader goals, and shows what the project accomplished.

What impact did this project have on WMF's mission and the strategic goals? Please answer in 1 -2 paragraphs and include specific measures of impact such as the number of readers or editors reached by a particular project, or the number of articles edited or improved.
Stabilize infrastructure
Increase participation
Improve quality
Increase reach
Encourage innovation

All participating organisations and groups are committed to our common mission. They come to Berlin to become even better at the work they are doing. The conference can motivate them to start new initiatives and improve their impact. They are learning from each other, building capacities and they contribute to movement and strategy related conversations that are aimed at advancing the movement as a whole.

The Wikimedia Conference was a perfect place to support leaders and decision makers of the movement organizations in order to allow the building of mutual trust, motivation, and empathy that enables them to solve conflicts more easily.

The program of the Wikimedia Conference supported and encouraged movement leaders to tackle important strategic issues of the Wikimedia movement, as the conference provided a safe and creative space to exchange opinions and make informed decisions. Here are some key examples of strategic topics and sessions:

→ Roles and relationships between WMF and Affiliates (“Movement Roles”) were one of the main topics of Lila’s talk and in the reflection session on her talk. Conference participants have shown interest in the proposed "consultation about the future roles of affiliates and WMF". At the WMCON Follow-Up Day at Wikimania, questions and format of such a consultation will be discussed.
→ The Chapter EDs who have prepared the session are considering to provide the outcomes as an input for the ongoing movement strategy process.
→ The WMF Learning and Evaluation Team is planning to conduct an “Impact Analysis” of the FY2013-14 PEG and IEG grants, exploring new qualitative areas of impact beyond Global Metrics. This will feed into future conversations about impact, potentially even as a theme of Wikimedia Conference 2016.
→ Furthermore, a community consultation on WMF’s grants programs will take place in Q3 2015.
→ In the Collective Impact session, parallels to the six tough questions from the Chapters Dialogue were shown and vividly discussed. It gave the participants an impression of how the movement can define partnerships and collaborations with other entities. In the Chapters Dialogue session, this parallel was shown as well and people discussed the current state of the quest for finding answers to the six tough questions. It became clear that there are still many open issues, but no path to tackle them is defined. At the WMCON Follow-Up Day at Wikimania 2015, the conversations will be continued.

The sessions of the Wikimedia Conference supported movement organizations in their organizational effectiveness, by providing capacity building workshops as well as opportunities to learn from each other and to share knowledge. Participants pointed out that learning and sharing knowledge were two of the main benefits of the Wikimedia Conference. Key capacity building workshops were:

The Conference also offered a dedicated space for meetings for different interests like regional or thematically focused groups. Following the survey results, the majority of initiatives started at the conference have a regional focus.

You can read more about the outcomes and next steps in the documentation of each session.

Reporting and documentation of expenditures


This section describes the grant's use of funds


Did you send documentation of all expenses paid with grant funds to grants at wikimedia dot org, according to the guidelines here? Answer "Yes" or "No".


Please list all project expenses in a table here, with descriptions and dates. Review the instructions here.
These expenses should be listed in the same format as the budget table in your approved submission so that anyone reading this report may be able to easily compare budgeted vs. actual expenses.
Note that variances in the project budget over 10% per expense category must be approved in advance by WMF Grants Program staff. For all other variances, please provide an explanation in the table below.
See here for documentation of expenses. (Google Spreadsheet)
Total project budget (from your approved grant submission)
105,209 €
Total amount requested from WMF (from your approved grant submission)
105,209 €
Total amount spent on this project (this total should be the total calculated from the table above)
99,684.17 €
Total amount of WMF grant funds spent on this project (this total will be the same as the total amount spent if the WMF grant is your only funding source)
99,684.17 €
Are there additional sources of revenue that funded any part of this project? List them here.

Remaining funds

Are there any grant funds remaining?
Answer YES or NO.
Please list the total amount (specify currency) remaining here. (This is the amount you did not use, or the amount you still have after completing your grant.)
5,524.83 €
Please be aware that WMDE did not receive the requested amount at the beginning of the project and that all costs incurred were advanced by WMDE. After the completion of the project, one final invoice, listing the total costs of the project, was sent to WMF. Thus, the amount of 5,524.83 € is not actually a remaining fund but represents the difference between the estimated and the actual costs.
If funds are remaining they must be returned to WMF, reallocated to mission-aligned activities, or applied to another approved grant.
Please state here if you intend to return unused funds to WMF, submit a request for reallocation, or submit a new grant request, and then follow the instructions on your approved grant submission.