Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/General Support Fund/GOIF Annual Plan 2025/Final Report
|
|
Part 1: Understanding your work
[edit]Per the recent update on the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy process, Wikimedia Affiliates that are General Support Fund grantees will fulfill their affiliate reporting requirements through their final or yearly grantee report.
If you are a Wikimedia Affiliate, you will use this form for your affiliate reporting and to address the affiliate health criteria. You do not need to submit a separate report to AffCom. Follow the guidance in the green boxes to report on how you met the corresponding affiliate health criteria.
If you are not a Wikimedia Affiliate, aligning your responses with the affiliate criteria is optional and not required.
1. Please share to what extent your programs, approaches, and strategies contributed to addressing the challenges you shared in your proposal. If they did not contribute as you believed they would, please share what obstacles you faced and what, if anything, you learned from them? (required)
For affiliates, use this space (Question 1.) to address Affiliate Health Criterion 1.1 (Goal delivery). Describe how you actively delivered on mission goals, e.g. content creation.
Our programs largely addressed the challenges identified in the proposal, especially around content gaps, skills development, retention, partnerships, and accessibility of knowledge. The strongest contribution came from our methodology of combining hands-on workshops, mentorship, and community ownership.
Across projects, surveys showed that 65–100% of participants rated the quality of workshops as Good or Excellent, and 75–94% found them Useful or Very Useful for improving writing and citation skills. In the Wiki Clubs, 100% of respondents reported improvement in writing and citation skills, confirming that our capacity-building approach effectively strengthened research and digital literacy. This directly supports our goal of equipping youth with transferable skills through Wikimedia volunteering.
Awareness-building was also highly successful. Over 90% of participants reported increased awareness of Wikipedia and Wikidata for research and documentation, across Wiki Clubs, Supreme Court, CSIR, Nubuke, and AfroCuration projects. This shows that our approach of framing Wikimedia as a research and knowledge infrastructure, not just a website worked well.
Volunteer retention and motivation showed promising outcomes. Between 82% and 100% of respondents indicated they were likely or very likely to continue contributing. In the Supreme Court project, student developers went beyond participation to become mentors, and one received the Best Mentor award in Wiki Mentor Africa. This confirms that our strategy of mentorship and delegated leadership successfully builds long-term engagement.
Our partnership strategy was also effective. Collaborations with CSIR, Nubuke, universities, and cultural institutions created credibility, diversified content areas, and strengthened community trust. Participants increasingly saw Wikimedia as a legitimate platform for academic, cultural, and legal knowledge sharing.
On knowledge equity and accessibility, AfroCuration, Effutu activities, Nzema and Twi projects demonstrated that local-language content creation increases awareness of linguistic inclusion and cultural ownership. Participants expressed a stronger sense of responsibility to document their own heritage and languages.
However, implementation revealed several important challenges that shaped our learning.
Contributor retention remained uneven. While participation during events was strong, fewer contributors completed long-term assignments or continued editing independently. Over time, we observed that motivation increased when participants felt supported, recognized, and able to work collaboratively. Instances where participants continued contributing after events demonstrated that intrinsic motivation grows best in environments that emphasize encouragement, ownership, and achievable tasks. This highlighted the need for stronger mentorship and follow-up structures.
Technical and infrastructural barriers were persistent. Unstable internet, power outages, and IP blocks affected participation and workflow. These realities emphasized the importance of flexibility in program design, including mobile-first approaches and adaptable facilitation methods. While these challenges could not always be fully resolved, they reinforced the value of resilience and contextual responsiveness in community-based open knowledge work.
Another key challenge was managing mixed skill levels during workshops. Sessions often included both new and experienced contributors, which required facilitators to move between basic and advanced content. Although experienced members naturally supported newcomers through peer mentoring, the learning flow was sometimes repetitive and less efficient. This revealed the need for a structured, tiered learning model with clearer pathways for beginners and returning participants. A curriculum-based approach will improve learning coherence and respect different levels of contributor growth.
Logistical uncertainties, such as last-minute venue changes and scheduling constraints, also affected implementation. These experiences showed the importance of contingency planning and reinforced the value of strong communication systems with partners. Despite these disruptions, community turnout and engagement remained strong, demonstrating trust in GOIF’s leadership and vision.
Overall, the most effective elements of our methodology were:
- Culturally grounded programming that connects open knowledge to local language, heritage, and identity
- Practice-based learning that integrates training with real contributions
- Strong institutional partnerships that build sustainability
- Community dialogue that promotes critical digital understanding
- Shared leadership and peer support that encourage ownership
Where our strategies fell short, they offered valuable insight. We learned that sustainability requires more than training; it depends on mentorship, structured learning pathways, and continuous community care. We also learned that language-focused and culturally rooted projects generate deeper commitment than generic editing activities.
These reflections have strengthened our understanding that impact lies not only in the volume of content created, but in building confident, critically aware communities who see themselves as long-term contributors to global knowledge systems.
2. Is there a plan to build on the key successes you had? If yes, please describe the plan and if no, please share the limitations to do so. For instance, did the activities lead to any new priorities, ideas for activities, or goals for the future? (required)
Yes, we plan to build directly on the strongest outcomes of this cycle. The surveys and project reports showed that mentorship, peer learning, practical training, and cultural relevance were the most effective drivers of impact. These now shape our next priorities.
First, we will move toward a more structured learning model, with: Progressive training levels (beginner → intermediate → mentor), Short curriculum guides to reduce repetition, Clear expectations for each workshop stage.
Second, we will strengthen mentorship pipelines. The success of the Supreme Court developers becoming mentors shows that early responsibility builds leadership. Future projects will intentionally identify and support mentors earlier.
Third, we will deepen local language and cultural documentation work. AfroCuration, Effutu, Nzema, and Twi projects showed that cultural relevance increases ownership and motivation. This becomes a core pillar for future programming.
Fourth, we will prioritize retention beyond contests, by: Setting small contribution targets, Encouraging non-editing roles (mentorship, organizing, outreach), Expanding community calls and leadership roles.
Fifth, we will refine gender inclusion strategies, moving beyond general inclusiveness to targeted engagement and safe learning spaces for women.
Finally, we will continue using simple and practical metrics, such as: Skill improvement, Awareness growth, Likelihood of continued contribution, Leadership emergence.
If we were teaching a newcomer, our main lesson would be: Impact comes not just from running events, but from designing pathways where people grow from learners, to contributors, to leaders. Structure, mentorship, and cultural relevance are what transform short-term participation into long-term community ownership.
3. Please provide a link to reports that detail the activities that took place in the last year. This can include an annual report, Meta pages, and websites. If there are no links available, briefly describe the implemented activities and programs below or upload any files. (required)
For affiliates, use this space (Question 3.) to address Affiliate Health Criteria 2.1 (Affiliate health & resilience), 4.1 (Internal engagement), 4.2 (Community connection), and 4.3 (Partnerships and collaboration):
- Describe your activities engaging new users, new members for your decision-making body(ies), and developing leaders and organizers (2.1).
- Describe your activities creating or hosting spaces to encourage greater collaboration and engagement among your members (4.1).
- Describe how you engage with the contributing community that you serve and/or support (4.2).
- Describe your partnerships with other affiliates or with non-Wikimedia entities (4.3).
Reports and documentation of activities conducted in the past year can be accessed through the following platforms:
Our annual programs dashboard: [1]
Wikimedia Meta pages
Organizational website and blog posts highlighting major projects and partnerships:
Link to Mid-Point Learning report: [10]
Commons categories
![[17]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:GOIF_at_Barcamp_Kasoa&fileuntil=GOIF+at+Barcamp+Kasoa+273.jpg#mw-category-media){kind=link}
4. Are you interested in sharing what you achieved or learned this year with the wider community through different peer learning programs (e.g. Let's Connect program, Diff)? (optional)
Yes, we intend to actively participate in wider movement calls, meetings, and events where appropriate, as well as publish posts to share our learnings.
5. Did you collect feedback from your community or target groups on how the activities implemented impacted them? If yes, please attach/provide information on the results (e.g. community surveys, stories, impact booklets/reports, interviews with partner institutions, etc). Did you collect other impact-specific data? (required)
For affiliates, the response to Question 5. also partially addresses Affiliate Health Criteria 4.1 (Internal Engagement), 4.2 (Community Connection), or 4.3 (Partnerships & collaboration), where applicable.
Yes, we systematically collected feedback across our 2025 projects using post-activity surveys, participant reflections, contribution tracking on Wikimedia platforms, and partner observations. Feedback was gathered from Wiki Clubs, the Supreme Court Web App project, Oral History documentation (beads), Dipo photowalk, CSIR workshops, Nubuke Foundation engagement, Effutu and AfroCuration workshop and activities.
From the aggregated survey responses and project reports:
Quality of workshops and activities: Over 85% of respondents described the sessions as educative, useful, and engaging, highlighting improved understanding of cultural documentation, research skills, and Wikimedia tools.
Usefulness in improving writing, citation, and documentation skills: About 75% reported increased confidence in content creation, uploading media, and documenting cultural heritage accurately, especially through Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia.
Increase in awareness of Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Commons for research: Across projects, nearly 70% of participants indicated they were not familiar with Wikimedia platforms before participation. After the activities, over 90% demonstrated understanding of how Wikimedia projects support research, cultural preservation, and open knowledge.
Likelihood of continued contribution: 100% of respondents in projects where this was measured (e.g., oral history, Dipo, Wiki Clubs) expressed motivation to participate in future Wikimedia activities, contests, or community projects.
Improved sense of belonging and community engagement: Approximately 80% reported feeling more connected to cultural heritage work and the Wikimedia community, describing the projects as collaborative, inspiring, and socially meaningful.
Increased data literacy and information literacy: Around 70% showed improved ability to work with open platforms, upload structured media, understand licensing, and apply ethical documentation practices.
Improved knowledge equity and accessibility for non-English speakers: Our bilingual and culturally grounded documentation approach (e.g., beads and oral history projects) directly addressed local knowledge gaps. Content was produced with local context and languages in mind, strengthening access to heritage knowledge for both local communities and global audiences.
Other impact-specific data collected can be found in the metric sections
These results are documented through:
Community surveys and feedback forms: [18]
Outreach Dashboard: [19]
Stories and testimonials from participants and partners:
6. During the fund period, did your efforts do any of the following? (required):
For affiliates, the response to Question 6. also partially addresses Affiliate Health Criterion 2.2 (Diversity balance).
- 6.1 Bring in participants from the following groups: women, indigenous groups , people from lower socioeconomic status, young people, speakers of minority languages, underrepresented geographical regions (ESEAP, LATAM, SSA, MENA, SA)
- 6.2 Develop content about the following underrepresented topics or groups of people: women, indigenous groups, speakers of minority languages, underrepresented geographical regions (ESEAP, LATAM, SSA, MENA, SA)
- 6.3 Support the retention of: Editors, Organizers, Partnerships
7. What, if any, effective tactics or approaches can you share that worked well when dealing with the programs under points 6.1-6.3 that you selected? (optional)
We encourage people to come out of their comfort zone by assigning or involving them in
- Event Facilitation/Co-training
- Wikipedia Birthday
- Community calls
- Workshops
Created an easygoing space for people to speak up. We included icebreaker activities and related to things both within and outside our context
8. If you developed partnerships, which of the following factors most helped you to build partnerships? Please pick a MAXIMUM of the three most relevant factors (optional):
Staff hired through the fund, Volunteers from our communities
Part 2: Metrics
[edit]| Metrics name | Target | Result | Comments and tools used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of all participants | 300 | 600 | Event and Outreach Dashboard, Google Forms, |
| Number of all editors | 200 | 557 | Outreach dashboard and nature of our events especially with partner institutions . |
| Number of new editors | 200 | 200 | |
| Number of retained editors | 150 | 170 | |
| Number of all organizers | 35 | 50 | A head count and outreach dashboard of core team, volunteer facilitators, patrons and staff support from partner organizations |
| Number of new organizers | 5 | 12 |
| Wikimedia project | Target - Number of created pages | Target - Number of improved pages | Result - Number of created pages | Result - Number of improved pages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wikipedia | 1230 | 1910 | 2200 | 4200 |
| Wikimedia Commons | 551 | 539 | ||
| Wikidata | 4500 | 2800 | 3700 | 7000 |
| Wiktionary | ||||
| Wikisource | ||||
| Wikimedia Incubator | ||||
| Translatewiki | ||||
| MediaWiki | ||||
| Wikiquote | ||||
| Wikivoyage | ||||
| Wikibooks | ||||
| Wikiversity | ||||
| Wikinews | ||||
| Wikispecies | ||||
| Wikifunctions or Abstract Wikipedia |
Tool used and comments (optional):
Categories on commons and outreach dashboards.
11. Did you set other quantitative and qualitative targets for your project (other metrics)? (required): Yes
11.1. Other Metrics.
In your application, you outlined some other open metrics that you would like to measure. Please fill out the achieved results for each of the open metrics you defined.
| Other Metrics name | Metrics Description | Target | Result | Tools and comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of New Partners | New partners brought in through our programs | 2 | 1 | |
| Female particiption | Number of females participation. | 60 | Dashboard | |
Part 3: Skill Development / Capacity Building
[edit]12. Reflecting on your programmatic (external) and organizational (internal) work, did your grant support you to undergo any skill development that made a difference to your success? If yes, what skill was developed, and how did it lead to success? (e.g. received coaching on public speaking, attended training on nonviolent communication, hosted professional development conversations on leadership, learned and used a new tool for project management, etc.)? Can you share any materials? (required)
For affiliates, use this space (Question 12.) to address Affiliate Health Criteria 2.2 (Diversity balance) and 3.1 (Diverse, Skilled, and Accountable Leadership):
- Describe actions taken to prioritize gender balance in affiliate leadership, as well as any areas of diversity relevant to your affiliate's context (2.2).
- Describe the management, financial, or other leadership skills of your affiliate leaders. If you have a succession plan, please include it here (3.1).
- Describe any training or skill development (as outlined in the question above) (3.1).
- Incorporate into the annual report a disclosure of conflict of interests (if any) from the leadership (3.1).
No. The grant did not directly fund any external or paid skill development services. However, through the implementation of our annual plan, our team strengthened skills in facilitation, mentorship, and adaptive teaching, particularly when working with groups of mixed experience levels. We also developed stronger coordination and leadership practices, including delegating roles to mentors and student leads across programs. Youth participants, especially those involved in the Supreme Court web app, gained practical experience in mentoring and supervision, with one participant recognised as a Best Mentor. These skills emerged through practice, reflection, and peer learning during program delivery rather than formal training.
13. What is one capacity/skill area that you would like to focus on for the next year? And how do you plan to achieve this capacity? (required)
For the next year, we want to focus on curriculum development and community governance. As our programs expanded, we learned that mixed skill levels among participants often led to repetition and uneven learning experiences. Developing a clear, modular curriculum will help us guide participants from beginner to advanced levels more effectively. We also plan to strengthen governance by clearly defining roles for mentors, facilitators, and community leads. This will improve coordination, reduce facilitator burden, and support peer learning. Overall, this focus will help us deliver more consistent, inclusive, and sustainable programs.
14. If you have additional information or reflections that don’t fit into the above sections, please write them here. Use the space below to upload any additional documents that would be useful to understand your report.
For affiliates, also use this section (Question 14) to fulfill the Affiliate Health Criteria requirements.
- Describe and link to any public-facing documentation for affiliate governance, including affiliate leadership and membership with a breakdown of the demographics; how elections are conducted; how conflicts of interest are declared; and how decisions are made and communicated (2.2, 2.3, 3.1).
- Describe and link to any public-facing documentation for activities incorporating, promoting awareness about, or enforcing the Universal Code of Conduct in your affiliate's activities (3.3).
- Describe and link to any public-facing documentation for internal membership engagement, such as notes from your regular meetings and how you communicate to or involve your membership (4.1).
Part 4: Financial reporting
[edit]For affiliates, also use this section (Part 4: Financial reporting) to address Affiliate Health Criterion 3.2 (Financial & Legal Compliance).
| Description | Planned / received budget for this category (GHS) | Amount spent (GHS) |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel costs | 168000 | 324180.06 |
| Operational costs | 1097030 | 102166.65 |
| Programmatic costs | 1265030 | 412553.14 |
| Total General Support Fund | 55000 | 838899.85 |
| Other revenue | ||
| Remaining funds from General Support Fund | 42247 |
15. Please state the total amount spent from this fund in your local currency. (required)
838899.85 GHS
16. Please provide an overview of the amount spent from this fund in the following budget categories in your local currency. (required)
- Operational costs: 102166.65 GHS
- Programmatic costs: 412553.14 GHS
- Staff and contractor costs: 324180.06 GHS
17. Did you have any other revenue sources (e.g. other funding, membership contributions, donations)? (required): No
- 17.1. Provide the total amount received from other revenue sources in your local currency. (required): GHS
- 17.2. Provide the total amount spent from other revenue sources in your local currency. (required): GHS
18. Provide a financial report document which will provide the details of funds received and spent in the currency of your fund. (required)
- Upload Documents, Templates, and Files.
- Report funds received and spent, if template not used.
18.2. If you have not already done so in your financial spending report, provide information on changes in the budget in relation to your original proposal. (optional)
N/A
19. Do you have any unspent funds from this funding?: Yes
- 19.1. Please list the amount of unspent funds in your local currency. (required)
- 42247
- 19.2. Explain why you did not use the amount. (required)
- This is largely funds for our participation at WikiIndaba.
- 19.3. What are you planning to do with the underspent funds?
- A. Propose to use the underspent funds within this Fund period with PO approval
- 19.4. Please provide details of hope to spend these funds.
- To support our participation at regional conferences this year(2026).
20. Final confirmations (required)
- 20.1. Are you in compliance with the terms outlined in the fund agreement? You must be in compliance 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 Wikimedia Foundation mission and for charitable/nonprofit/educational purposes.
- Yes
- 20.2. Are you in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations as outlined in the grant agreement?
- Yes
- 20.3. 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
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 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.