Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/Conference Fund/Youth Conference 2025/Final Report

Conference Fund Final Report

Report Status: Accepted

Due date: 30 August 2025

Funding program: Conference Fund

Report type: Final

This is an automatically generated Meta-Wiki page. The page was copied from Fluxx, the web service of Wikimedia Foundation Funds, where the user has submitted their midpoint report. Please do not make any changes to this page because all changes will be removed after the next update. Use the discussion page for your feedback. The page was created by CR-FluxxBot.

General information

Title of proposal: Youth Conference 2025
Username of applicant: Klára Joklová (WMCZ)
Name of organization: N/A
Amount awarded: 154802
Amount spent: 147772.32 USD, 3120323.09 CZK

Part 1: Understanding your work

1. Did your event have any impact that you did not expect, positive or negative?

The general interpretation of the event's impact:

The movement includes many motivated young people who enjoy organizing activities, provided they have the right conditions to do so. Young people were and felt heard; they engaged and opened up. The way we work with young people, how we design spaces dedicated to them, and how we recognise them, has a strong effect on their contributions and engagement. There has been a significant commitment and follow-up in terms of future regional and/or local plans, and numerous articles and blog posts have been produced since the conference. Several of the young changemakers in the community act directly after the conference, sharing their experiences and creating demand for regional meetings and conferences. Three of them also applied for election to the WMF Board of Trustees, which is a significant move. The wider community is interested in learning from this experience and providing young people with efficient support (e.g., as clearly stated at the EDU Wiki conference in Bogotá following the Wikimedia Youth Conference). Activities such as this conference, CEE Youth initiative, Wikivibrance, or other local variations of youth-led structures are strongly supporting the current movement strategy, such as the multi-generational pillar, or emphasis on inclusion, diversity, safety, and incorporating new technological trends. This is also because young people are the holders of those new trends, and are much more sensitive to what is needed nowadays for Wikimedia projects to succeed.

2. What do you think will be the long term impact of this conference?

The Wikimedia Youth Conference 2025 has demonstrated the importance and potential of youth involvement in the Wikimedia movement. Over three days in Prague, 83 participants from across the CEE region and the broader global Wikimedia community came together to co-create a shared understanding of the challenges young Wikimedians face and to explore constructive, future-focused responses.

The data collected throughout the conference offers a powerful window into the perspectives of young contributors. Across all four core statements, common themes such as mentorship, recognition, accessibility, and inclusion emerged repeatedly. At the same time, the wide diversity of individual inputs shows that young Wikimedians are not a monolithic group — they bring a spectrum of experiences, motivations, and visions that reflect the richness and complexity of the broader youth population.

Similarly, the need for personal meetings in a welcoming atmosphere was reflected, as well as a program that specifically promotes the formation of friendships and personal relationships among participants. The high level of individual support for all participants, even during the preparation phase, was greatly appreciated.

Importantly, the findings also illustrate a deep awareness among young participants of their capacity for agency. Many responses were not just calls for change from the movement but included personal commitments, reflections on boundaries and wellbeing, and practical ideas for localised action.

The insights captured during this event confirm the value of sustained youth engagement, not only as a way to secure the future of Wikimedia but as a means to shape it more equitably and dynamically. This report provides a foundation for future conversations and decisions that place young voices where they belong — at the heart of the movement.

3. Would you say that your work improved participants’ ability to apply new skills and knowledge?

Yes

3a. If yes, please describe how and why you think this was successful. Please describe why you think this is the case.

Program & Learning design of the conference The main elements of the conference have been:

PARTICIPATORY APPROACH Participatory approach to preparation, delivery, and follow-up of the conference: young people have been at the centre of attention, but also invited to help us co-design the process. Obviously, for practical reasons, to a certain extent, it was in a way of representation,

UNCONFERENCE STYLE & FOCUS ON PARTICIPANTS AND RELATIONSHIPS consciously chosen unconference style, hands-on, which enabled the maximization of the activation of all participants, their interaction and connection, as well as a focus on their own experiences. The program was prepared as a whole, together with facilitators, and was based on the vision of the event. It focused on maximizing the active involvement of participants and supporting the building of their relationships.

100% FACILITATED PROCESS: MIX PROFESSIONAL & PEER FACILITATION Facilitated guided process as an essential part of the program delivery - this has been outsourced to professionals with a youthwork & education background who worked shoulder to shoulder with the WMCZ team, preparatory and reporting crew, as well as with the peer facilitators from the CEE Youth Group.

INDIVIDUAL APPROACH & PREPARATION Individual preparation of participants ahead of the conference - there has been a clear application and selection process designed, and selected participants have had their pre-conference preparation tasks. The organizers were in regular contact with all participants and encouraged group communication long before the event. Several online meetings were held with participants before the conference itself, where they were prepared for the format and content. Intensive communication with everyone took place from the beginning of the preparations. Everyone was given the opportunity to introduce themselves individually, at least in the form of posters, which were displayed throughout the conference.

MICRO-LEARNING Micro-learning elements presented throughout the program: with the limited time and several objectives to fulfil with the conference, there needed to be a balance between focus on personal development areas, research parts, and the general conference program (business as usual). Despite that, we found it important to incorporate several learning moments, which were a bit individualised and also provided by a significant number of guests and more experienced participants, such as parallel specific skill building workshops, discussion tables during lunch or leisure programs in the evenings.

ONLINE TOOLS During the conference, we used interactive tools such as Slido and others, and we also created our online planner.

ACTION/ FUTURE PLANNING Action/future planning - enough space dedicated to harvesting part, using the momentum of the conference and the motivation of each individual to further plan and get support and recognition for their plans, this is being still followed up by offering mentoring/support, and also by sharing this report with the local and regional communities and entities to get involved with their possible support measures. FUN & FRIENDSHIP Informal parts of the conference were part of the experience, such as themed lunches, game nights with a program prepared by the CEE Youth Group, and a cooperative game, all to bring the participants together as one group.

4. Please use this space to upload media and other files that help tell your story and impact. You can also provide links to them.

Field to type in URLs.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Final_report_from_Wikimedia_Youth_Conference_Prague_2025.pdf https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Appendix_I._Additional_prezentation_to_the_Youth_Conference_25_report.pdf https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Appendix_III._Regional_Group%E2%80%99s_Action_Plans.pdf

https://wikimedia.eventyay.com/talk/wikimania2025/talk/8UGQHS/

5. To what extent do you agree with the following statements regarding the work carried out with the support of this Fund? You can choose “not applicable” if your work does not relate to these goals.

Our efforts during the Fund period have helped to...
A. Bring in participants from underrepresented groups
B. Create a more inclusive and connected culture in our community	Strongly agree
C. Develop content about underrepresented topics/groups
D. Develop content from underrepresented perspectives	Agree
E. Encourage the retention of editors	Not applicable
F. Encourage the retention of organizers	Strongly agree

6. Please share resources that would be useful to share with other Wikimedia organizations so that they can learn from, adapt or build upon your work. For instance, guides, training material, presentations, work processes, or any other material the team has created to document and transfer knowledge about your work and can be useful for others. Please share any specific resources that you are creating, adapting/contextualizing in ways that are unique to your context (i.e. training material).

Upload Documents and Files

Here is an additional field to type in URLs.

N/A

7. Is there anything else you would like to share about how your efforts helped to bring in participants and/or build out content, particularly for underrepresented groups?

Scholarship process:

The selection process was designed to take into account as much as possible a fair regional representation and diversity of experience. Organisational experience and, in particular, organisational potential for the future were a prerequisite. The entire process, from contacting the committee to selecting participants, took 3 weeks. We maximized efficiency to ensure that scholarship recipients received their results as soon as possible.

Indeed, one of the goals of the event was to support and build future leaders of the movement. This is also why we asked Wikimedia chapters or user groups, and other individual leaders, to identify the best representatives of their communities. The result was a balanced selection of 83 young Wikimedians from around the world – both from established communities and from underrepresented regions.

A 10-member international scholarship committee selected 80 young people from more than 50 countries from an initial pool of 223 applicants. The committee's primary goal was to achieve fair geographic representation, while also considering gender and language balance, diversity of experience, breadth of community representation, and overall diversity of voices. According to the plan, 40 scholarships were allocated to the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) region, and an equal number was distributed among the remaining 7 Wikimedia regions.

Part 2: Your main learning

8. Were there any major challenges or things you found difficult that you would like to share? What would you do differently next time?

Lessons learned:

What would we repeat? – Broad endorsement for the event: We informed everyone of our intention in advance and sought support across the board. – Building on existing experience and relationships: We involved colleagues and communities at various levels in the preparations, particularly in identifying suitable participants. – Experienced team & organization during the event: event teams with clear responsibilities: The WMCZ team is experienced in organizing events and working with young people. Everyone had their area of responsibility that they fully mastered (production, PR & Comms, outcomes). The entire event was planned in detail from start to finish so that each team and team member knew independently at all times what was happening, what their responsibilities were, and that everything worked as a whole. – Enthusiastic professional facilitators all the way: We ran the conference as a team together with two facilitators who helped us create the event program from the very beginning. – Participant profiling & scholarship process: Focusing on future leaders and organizers was a logical and positive step. The scholarship process was efficient, fast, and fair. – Individual communication with participants through (“hot line”): From the outset, we were in contact (via a Telegram group) with future participants, providing each of them with individual support and involving everyone as active participants and contributors. Everyone is important. – Host seat limitation and their preparation/ role definition: There was great interest in participating as guests/observers. However, group dynamics and the atmosphere of the event were our priority, so we greatly limited the number of possible guests and prepared them all for their observer role so that they understood that there were parts of the program that were for participants only. On the other hand, the guests provided significant support throughout the event and also prepared contributions to the Skills Market section, which added variety for the participants. – Total participant limitation (so that everyone can get to know everyone else): We believe that the planned 90 participants is the maximum number that can still get to know each other. The program encouraged interaction throughout and created conditions for everyone to meet each other. – Preparation of participants before the event: Participants were prepared for their active role in the event. Several online meetings were held in advance. It turned out that those who did not have this opportunity (e.g., did not undergo full preparation because they replaced someone at the last minute) were not well prepared for the nature of the event. – Program & Learning Design of the conference & Peer facilitation: The program was designed as a whole to develop the objectives of the meeting. Participants actively co-created the outputs throughout the entire event, independently and without interference from anyone with a potentially higher rank, which was made possible by peer facilitators who were properly prepared. – The culture of encounters & the feeling of belonging: FSP and welcoming individual differences and supporting each other, welcoming differences and allowing all voices to be heard. The intention was to welcome what is difficult to share at the event. Not just in words, but by living it throughout the entire time. Participants co-created (or fully created) social evenings. We had spaces prepared to allow for rest. We thought about mental well-being and addressed various needs. There is never enough of this support; it is certainly possible to always do more!

What would we do differently? – A travel agency hired locally with greater flexibility for purchasing plane tickets. – A broader support for the scholarship process: a separate person solely for visa management and organization, communication with embassies, and preparation of scholarship recipients.

9. Was there any non-financial support that the Wikimedia Foundation could have provided that would have better supported you in achieving your goals?

What form of support from WMF did we appreciate? – Informal and partner support throughout the entire process, from the planning stage. – Clear and sensible application process for a conference grant with ongoing support from the WMF team. – Offering various forms of support from WMF adjusted to our needs. – Facilitating communication within WMF: assistance in approaching guests, selecting them, preparing and addressing them.

What would we need differently? – Previous grant application result: 6 months for thorough preparation is not sufficient, especially for a global event; 9 months in advance would be minimum. – Clarification in budgeting/ role distinction/ organizer vs. WMF: timely clarification of all (internal WMF) related rules that may affect the event budget – Broader support for the scholarship process: WMF can prepare strategies for individual countries, and should collect and share/ provide expert and official support.

10. What would you recommend on a local and/or regional level as the best next step to leverage your success and momentum?

NEXT STEPS…

A: Recommendations to the movement:

Long-term desired outcomes: 1. There is a strategy on how to bring more young people to Wikipedia, how to attract them more, keep them active, and make a growing space for them. 2. There is an organized (peer) support network for young wikimedians across communities. 3. The strategy includes points against burnout and room for individual growth. 4. There is a regular space where young wikimedians can express their views and gather know-how, where their voice is heard.

B: Suggestions for organizers: a. Globally – Global Wikimedia Youth conference every other year Wikimedia Youth Conference, Global Youth Wikimedians gathering: –> We (as founders and organizers) do not consider this type of event to be annual; it should be held every other year or every three years.

b. Regionally – Regional meetings of young Wikimedians take place between global conferences.

Regional Hubs: The Wikimedia world is (artificially) divided into eight regions. We have also used this general division for assigning participants and suggest continuing to use it. (MENA: Middle East & North Africa | SS Africa: Sub-Saharan Africa | S Asia: South Asia | ESEAP: East, Southeast Asia, & Pacific | LATAM: Latin America & Caribbean | N America: North America | NWE: Northern & Western Europe | CEE: Central & Eastern Europe & Central Asia.) Participants at the Youth Conference in Prague drew up plans for continuing regional cooperation and also worked at the regional level. However, they will need support here. –> Regional hubs offer a logical support structure, just as the CEE Youth Group was established and is organized on the initiative of the CEE Hub. If it is not possible to use the regional Hub platform, another regional platform, cooperation, or initiative, such as a strong affiliate, can serve a similar purpose. –> At the CEE Hub level, we organize support meetings with other Hubs, where we would also like to support their work with regional youth. We work with the WMF team responsible for supporting Hubs: the team is led by Jessica Stephenson. We are preparing a space where we can map and support regional youth work so that we can support each other –> META PAGE. –> At the regional level, meetings of young Wikimedians can be held annually, for example, at existing regional conferences.

Regional Action Plans: created in conference by conference participants: –> The young participants of the conference have created their regional plans, so don't forget to involve them!

At the community level Wikimedia chapters | communities: –> Supporting local young people and connecting them to other horizontal structures is something that will boost their individual motivation and community activity. –> It is good to highlight the merits of young volunteers.

Individuals/ Conference participants: –> Each conference participant had the opportunity to create their plan for voluntary involvement over the next 6–12 months. –> We want to continue to support them in fulfilling this plan, at least through online meetings of conference participants.

11. Please add any 3 operational recommendations for future events organizers.

Part 3: Metrics

12. Open Metrics reporting

In your application, you defined some open metrics and targets (goals). You will see a table like the one below with your metric in the title and the target you set in your proposal automatically filled in.

Open Metrics Summary
Open Metrics	Description	Target	Results	Comments	Methodology
Number of scholarships awarded	How many scholarships were ultimately approved by the scholarship committee and awarded to the target group.	80	80	The selection process was designed to take into account as much as possible a fair regional representation and diversity of experience. Organisational experience and, in particular, organisational potential for the future were a prerequisite. The entire process, from contacting the committee to selecting participants, took 3 weeks. We maximized efficiency so that scholarship recipients would receive their results as soon as possible. Indeed, one of the goals of the event was to support and build future leaders of the movement. This is also why we asked Wikimedia chapters or user groups, and other individual leaders, to identify the best representatives of their communities. The result was a balanced selection of 83 young Wikimedians from around the world – both from established communities and from underrepresented regions. A 10-member international scholarship committee selected 80 young people from more than 50 countries from an initial pool of 223 applicants. The committee's primary goal was fair geographic representation, while also considering gender and language balance, diversity of experience and breadth of community representation, and simply the overall diversity of voices. According to the plan, 40 scholarships were allocated to the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) region, and an equal number was distributed among the remaining 7 Wikimedia regions.	List of awarded scholarsdips.
Activation	80% of participants will rate the event positively on the level of usefulness for their further activity in the Wikimedia movement.	64	63	The planned number of regular participants was 80, but due to circumstances (mainly visas not being granted), this fell to 71 regular participants + 3 young representatives of WMCZ, who were, however, on the borderline with the organizational team. So let's count 71 as all regular young participants in the conference. (All statistics: 61 full schollars 4 partial schollars 6 self funded participants 71 regular participants 3 young Czech reprezentants 74 regular young conference participants = scholarship recipients + self-funded + WMCZ young representatives 83 young participants, including volunteers and guests 13 active guests (mainly from WMF, CEE Hub, and Wikimedia Austria) 103 of all conference participants in person Several people who were unable to attend due to visa issues participated in a small part of the program, which we ran in a hybrid format. Of these, 45 participants filled out the post-conference feedback form, which is roughly 63%. On the other hand, the results of this evaluation are very positive: Overall satisfaction score: 4.58. Wikimedia Youth Conference 2025 – Post-Event Feedback Analysis (Participants' Feedback) 1. Executive Snapshot Total responses: 45 Demographic highlights: - Participants came from diverse countries across the CEE region and beyond. - A healthy mix of first-time attendees and experienced Wikimedians. Overall satisfaction score: 4.58 / 5 (median = 5) Key takeaway: The event was very well-received. While some minor suggestions for improvement were shared, participants were overwhelmingly positive about the overall experience. 2. Quantitative Insights We analyzed all Likert-scale (1–5) questions to measure participant satisfaction. Top 5 Highest-Rated Aspects Feeling safe, respected, and comfortable — 4.93 Personal & professional growth opportunities — 4.89 Overall venue satisfaction — 4.73 Venue accessibility to physical needs — 4.73 Opportunities to contribute as a Wikimedian — 4.71 Key Insight: The strongest highlights were the welcoming environment, inclusivity, and opportunities for growth. These areas had near-universal satisfaction.	Feedback form for participants.
No. of young Wikimedians	At least 10 young Wikimedians will be involved in the preparation of the event. We aim for long-term cooperation with this group. It will be a core team of young organizers.	10	19	10 peer facilitators from among the participants (CEE Youth group), many of whom had specific tasks during the conference or preparations 3 others joined the others in preparing the social program 6 young volunteers helped with the implementation of the conference, beyond the scope of regular participants The general aim was to involve all participants in the program to some extent: for example, by leading "thematic discussion tables" during lunches.	List of participants, observation.
No. of CEE communities	At least 8 communities from the CEE region will be involved in the preparations.	8	18	Overall, representatives from 18 communities/affiliates from the CEE region participated in the conference. Many of them were actively involved in preparing the conference, particularly its social aspects, i.e., all evening programs, and 10 members of CEE Youth were prepared to serve as peer facilitators. In addition, young representatives from the CEE region took on communication roles and took care of some of the social media outputs, especially on Instagram and TikTok.	List of participants, observation, CEE Youth TikTok and Instagram channel.
Event report	Public presentation of the event report.	1	1	Presentation at Wikimania, more are planned.	https://wikimedia.eventyay.com/talk/wikimania2025/talk/8UGQHS/

13. Were there any metrics in your proposal that you could not collect or that you had to change?

No

13a. If you have any difficulties collecting data to measure your results, please describe and add any recommendations on how to address them in the future. Also mention why you felt you had to change some metrics.

N/A

14. Please indicate if you applied any of the following survey and registration tools. Please select all that apply.

1. Standard Registration Form, 2. Post-event participant survey, 3. Follow-up (3-month) participants’ survey

14a. Please share the result(s) with us, provide the link(s) or summarize the main result(s) and insight(s) from them.

Wikimedia Youth Conference 2025 – Post-Event Feedback Analysis (Participants' Feedback) 1. Executive Snapshot

Total responses: 45
Demographic highlights:

  - Participants came from diverse countries across the CEE region and beyond.
  - A healthy mix of first-time attendees and experienced Wikimedians.

Overall satisfaction score: 4.58 / 5 (median = 5)
Key takeaway: The event was very well-received. While some minor suggestions for improvement were shared, participants were overwhelmingly positive about the overall experience.

2. Quantitative Insights We analyzed all Likert-scale (1–5) questions to measure participant satisfaction. Top 5 Highest-Rated Aspects

Feeling safe, respected, and comfortable — 4.93
Personal & professional growth opportunities — 4.89
Overall venue satisfaction — 4.73
Venue accessibility to physical needs — 4.73
Opportunities to contribute as a Wikimedian — 4.71

Key Insight: The strongest highlights were the welcoming environment, inclusivity, and opportunities for growth. These areas had near-universal satisfaction. Bottom 5 Lowest-Rated Aspects (Still highly rated overall — none scored below 4.2)

Saturday wellbeing session — 4.38 (well-received overall, a few questioned relevance)
Saturday tolerance session — 4.36 (mixed engagement, majority satisfied)
Accommodation quality — 4.33 (minor complaints, overall mostly happy)
Scholarship process transparency — 4.33 (some wanted clarity, majority satisfied)
Food provided — 4.22 (a few wanted more variety, most satisfied)

Key Insight: Even the “lowest-rated” aspects scored highly, with averages well above 4/5. Category-Level Performance

Program & sessions: 4.55 — Generally engaging, some mixed feedback but well-received overall.
Venue & logistics: 4.66 — Consistently praised; smooth organization and a great environment.
Accommodation & food: 4.28 — Mostly positive feedback, a few suggestions for improvement, but ratings confirm overall satisfaction.
Personal development: 4.78 — Participants strongly valued the event for skill-building and confidence.
Overall experience: 4.58 — Excellent satisfaction levels across the board.

3. Qualitative Insights (Open Feedback) 3.1 Positive Highlights The most frequently praised aspects were:

Atmosphere & inclusivity: Participants loved the safe, welcoming, and supportive environment.
Networking & community: Building relationships with other young Wikimedians was often cited as the best part.
Program quality: Interactive workshops and peer-led sessions were highly valued.
Sense of empowerment: Many participants felt heard, inspired, and motivated.

“"It was inspiring to meet so many young Wikimedians who share similar goals. I felt heard and valued." — Anonymous participant 3.2 Challenges & Pain Points While feedback was overwhelmingly positive, a few minor issues were raised:

Food variety & quality: Some participants wanted more vegetarian/vegan options, but most were satisfied overall.
Accommodation: A small number reported less-than-ideal room conditions, though the majority gave positive ratings.
Scholarship transparency: Some requested clearer pre-event communication, yet most were happy with the support provided.
Session relevance: A few participants felt certain workshops didn’t match their needs, but they were still rated positively on average.

“"Some sessions felt rushed or not very connected to my needs. I’d prefer more hands-on workshops." — Anonymous participant 3.3 Suggestions for Improvement Participants shared constructive ideas, showing deep engagement and care for the event’s future:

Increase youth-led sessions → More peer-facilitated content.
Extend networking time → Longer informal sessions to build connections.
Improve communication → Clearer schedules, logistics, and scholarship info ahead of time.
Diversify session formats → More interactive workshops and fewer long presentations.

4. Sentiment Analysis of Open Feedback We coded the open-text responses into positive, neutral, and negative themes:

Positive feedback: ~72%
Neutral feedback: ~18%
Negative feedback: ~10%

Key Insight: The vast majority of participants loved the event. Neutral comments were mostly improvement suggestions, and strong dissatisfaction was extremely rare. 5. Summary The Wikimedia Youth Conference 2025 received exceptionally positive feedback.

Participants praised the inclusive atmosphere, venue quality, and personal growth opportunities.
Networking and peer collaboration were repeatedly described as the most valuable aspects.
Where challenges were mentioned — such as food, accommodation, or session relevance — they came from a minority of participants, and ratings for these areas were still strongly positive.
Suggestions were forward-looking, demonstrating participants’ enthusiasm for shaping future events.

Overall takeaway: The conference created a safe, inspiring, and empowering space for young Wikimedians, meeting — and often exceeding — participants’ expectations.

14b. If you used other forms, please share them with us, as these forms might be useful for others to use.

Part 4: Financial reporting and compliance

15. & 16. Please state the total amount spent in your local currency.

3120323.09 CZK

17. Please state the total amount spent in USD.

147772.32 USD

18. Please report the funds received and spending in the currency of your fund.

Upload a financial report file.

Please provide a link to your financial reporting document.

https://tracker.wikimedia.cz/grant/youth-conf-25/ – It shows the total expenses of WMCZ (CZK 1,882,074.09 in total) publicly and transparently in the Tracker system, excluding the amount of expenses for Final Flight Spend incurred by Amex (58,655..02USD).

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

19. If you have not already done so in your budget report, please provide information on changes in the budget in relation to your original proposal.

The changes were discussed with the PO during the proceedings.

20. Do you have any unspent funds from the Fund?

Yes

20a. Please list the amount and currency you did not use and explain why.

Underspent: 104,381.11 CZK. Amount saved/unused compared to expectations: normal amount.

20b. What are you planning to do with the underspent funds?

B. Propose to use them to partially or fully fund a new/future request with PO approval

20c. Please provide details of hope to spend these funds.

Support for further work with Young Wikimedians: after consultation with PO.

21. Are you in compliance with the terms outlined in the fund agreement?

Yes

22. Are you in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations as outlined in the grant agreement?

Yes

23. Are you in compliance with provisions of the United States Internal Revenue Code (“Code”), and with relevant tax laws and regulations restricting the use of the Funds as outlined in the grant agreement? In summary, this is to confirm that the funds were used in alignment with the WMF mission and for charitable/nonprofit/educational purposes.

Yes

24. If you have additional recommendations or reflections that don’t fit into the above sections, please write them here.