Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/General Support Fund/ Indigenous Language revitalization through Wikimedia Movement - A pilot for Gondi and Kolami. /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.
The project exceeded several of its original content targets across Wikimedia platforms, demonstrating strong community participation and effective capacity building. On Wikipedia, the target of 100 newly created pages was significantly surpassed, with approximately 1,800 pages created, while the target for improving 100 pages was fully achieved. Although no initial targets were set for Wikimedia Commons, the project resulted in the upload of around 300 media files, expanding visual documentation for underrepresented communities.
Within the Wikimedia Incubator, the project met its target for creating new pages and substantially exceeded expectations for improving existing pages (870 improvements against a target of 500), reflecting focused work on strengthening emerging language projects. On Translatewiki, progress was moderate: while 1,500 messages were translated against a target of 2,000, the improvement target of 500 was only partially achieved (100), primarily due to technical complexity and limited availability of trained translators.
Overall, the results indicate that community-driven activities were highly effective in content creation and foundational development, though technical translation work progressed more slowly due to capacity and infrastructure constraints.
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, there is a clear plan to build on the key successes of the project. The strong community response from Gondi and Kolami contributors, along with the significant growth in Wikimedia content, has created a foundation for long-term engagement. Future efforts will focus on sustaining monthly community meetings, expanding contributor training through hybrid (online and offline) workshops, and strengthening institutional partnerships with schools, universities, and language bodies.
New priorities that emerged include deeper work on Wiktionary and Incubator projects to support language development, increased media documentation through Wikimedia Commons, and continued engagement of youth and women contributors. We also plan to promote Wikimedia integration in academic settings and support language standardization initiatives to improve content quality.
However, scaling these efforts will depend on addressing key limitations such as funding constraints, internet access in remote areas, and the availability of trained local coordinators. Despite these challenges, the project has generated strong community ownership and momentum, making future expansion both feasible and impactful with adequate support.
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).
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 will share it through Diff.
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, feedback was regularly gathered from community members and participants during monthly meetings, workshops, and informal discussions. Contributors shared their experiences, challenges, and suggestions in real time, which enabled the team to adjust activities, provide additional guidance, and focus on priority areas such as Wiktionary development and support for contributors in low-connectivity regions. Overall, participants expressed increased confidence in contributing to Wikimedia platforms and a stronger sense of ownership in documenting and promoting their languages.
However, as this was our first experience implementing a partnership of this scale, we were not able to systematically document this feedback using formal tools such as surveys, written evaluations, or structured impact reports. Most feedback remained verbal or captured in internal notes. We recognize this as an important learning outcome and plan to introduce simple documentation mechanisms in future programs — including feedback forms, participant records, testimonials, and periodic impact summaries — to ensure community perspectives are properly recorded and used to guide program improvements.
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, speakers of minority languages, underrepresented geographical regions (ESEAP, LATAM, SSA, MENA, SA), young people
- 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
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)
Community-centered engagement proved most effective, particularly by involving local language speakers, cultural leaders, and youth as active contributors rather than passive participants. Conducting hands-on, residential workshops and culturally contextual activities helped build trust, ownership, and sustained participation in Wikimedia projects.
Additionally, combining offline training with continued online support enabled volunteers to remain active despite connectivity and resource challenges. Providing practical tasks (such as content creation, digitization, and documentation of local knowledge) along with mentorship significantly improved retention, skill development, and measurable contributions.
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 | 50 | ||
| Number of all editors | 40 | ||
| Number of new editors | 100 | ||
| Number of retained editors | 20 | ||
| Number of all organizers | 3 | ||
| Number of new organizers | 2 |
| Wikimedia project | Target - Number of created pages | Target - Number of improved pages | Result - Number of created pages | Result - Number of improved pages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wikipedia | 100 | 100 | 1800 | 100 |
| Wikimedia Commons | 300 | 0 | ||
| Wikidata | ||||
| Wiktionary | ||||
| Wikisource | ||||
| Wikimedia Incubator | 3 | 500 | 3 | 870 |
| Translatewiki | 2000 | 500 | 1500 | 100 |
| MediaWiki | ||||
| Wikiquote | ||||
| Wikivoyage | ||||
| Wikibooks | ||||
| Wikiversity | ||||
| Wikinews | ||||
| Wikispecies | ||||
| Wikifunctions or Abstract Wikipedia |
Tool used and comments (optional):
Caluculated from Campwiz, Wikimedia Incubator Edit checks & Commons Category Count.
11. Did you set other quantitative and qualitative targets for your project (other metrics)? (required): No
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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).
Yes. The grant strengthened our skills in community facilitation, event coordination, and Wikimedia project implementation. Through hands-on activities, we improved volunteer management, training delivery, and adherence to UCoC standards. We also built technical capacity to guide contributors across platforms, which directly supported successful program execution and measurable content outcomes.
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)
One key capacity area we would like to focus on in the coming year is structured program management and impact documentation. While the project achieved strong community engagement and content outcomes, we identified gaps in systematic monitoring, evaluation, and reporting, particularly in capturing feedback, tracking participant progress, and documenting qualitative impact. Strengthening this capacity will enable us to better assess effectiveness, demonstrate outcomes to stakeholders, and design more evidence-based interventions for Indigenous language communities.
To achieve this, we plan to adopt simple monitoring frameworks, standardized reporting templates, and digital tools for data collection, including post-event feedback forms, participant databases, and periodic progress reviews. We will also seek mentorship from experienced Wikimedia affiliates and partner organizations, and provide internal training for team members on project management and evaluation practices. This will help build institutional readiness for larger partnerships while ensuring that future programs are both impactful and well-documented.
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 (INR) | Amount spent (INR) |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel costs | 540000 | 540000 |
| Operational costs | 315000 | 315000 |
| Programmatic costs | 897750 | 884706 |
| Total General Support Fund | 11917.4 | 1191700 |
| Other revenue | ||
| Remaining funds from General Support Fund | N/A |
15. Please state the total amount spent from this fund in your local currency. (required)
1191700 INR
16. Please provide an overview of the amount spent from this fund in the following budget categories in your local currency. (required)
- Operational costs: 315000 INR
- Programmatic costs: 884706 INR
- Staff and contractor costs: 540000 INR
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): INR
- 17.2. Provide the total amount spent from other revenue sources in your local currency. (required): INR
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.
- Link to Budget Doc: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UOc96rz02h7CH-bkL3xDR3ZSCHl0YA10aanMjt9AyEA/edit?usp=sharing
Link to Reporting Doc: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zdXK1_-pJC5-6WUImHLBum0JUo2ccgTcskR12uW8ybE/edit?usp=sharing
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?: No
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.