Grants:Project/WM BE/Public facing activities 2017/Midpoint
Welcome to this project's midpoint report! This report shares progress and learning from the grantee's first
In a few short sentences or bullet points, give the main highlights of what happened with your project so far.
- In the past 6 months (January-June 2017) we organised 14 open edit-a-thons, 7 closed workshops, gave 23 presentations about Wikipedia/Wikimedia, organised/participated in 8 other open events, organised 2 wikimeets, had one general assembly, 2 board meetings, 47 organisational meetings with external partners or internal meetings as part of a project, published one newsletter in three languages, 7 other publications (press releases, announcements, official letters, etc), 13 people participated in 5 conference like events (and (co-)organised two ourselves), had one photography session, and 1 double writing week.
Methods and activities
How have you setup your project, and what work has been completed so far?
Describe how you've setup your experiment or pilot, sharing your key focuses so far and including links to any background research or past learning that has guided your decisions. List and describe the activities you've undertaken as part of your project to this point.
- Our main activity is reaching out to GLAM institutions, explaining how Wikipedia works, helping them with getting material on Wikimedia platforms and informing them about how to collaborate with Wikipedia/Wikimedia. For the rest we are limited in our capacity as result of not having any budget for lingual support.
What are the results of your project or any experiments you’ve worked on so far?
Please discuss anything you have created or changed (organized, built, grown, etc) as a result of your project to date.
- See #Summary
- The main purpose of the grant is providing support towards GLAMs about how to work together with Wikipedia/Wikimedia. After a heavy year in 2016, the collaborations slowly start up and grow further and further.
Please take some time to update the table in your project finances page. Check that you’ve listed all approved and actual expenditures as instructed. If there are differences between the planned and actual use of funds, please use the column provided there to explain them.
Then, answer the following question here: Have you spent your funds according to plan so far? Please briefly describe any major changes to budget or expenditures that you anticipate for the second half of your project.
- Yes, largely.
The best thing about trying something new is that you learn from it. We want to follow in your footsteps and learn along with you, and we want to know that you are taking enough risks to learn something really interesting! Please use the below sections to describe what is working and what you plan to change for the second half of your project.
What are the challenges
What challenges or obstacles have you encountered? What will you do differently going forward? Please list these as short bullet points.
- As expected that we have a lingual problem (which wasn't taken seriously enough by the grants team with the grant proposal). What we will do differently is to change from grant program at the end of the year to solve this problem.
What is working well
What have you found works best so far? To help spread successful strategies so that they can be of use to others in the movement, rather than writing lots of text here, we'd like you to share your finding in the form of a link to a learning pattern.
Next steps and opportunities
What are the next steps and opportunities you’ll be focusing on for the second half of your project? Please list these as short bullet points. If you're considering applying for a 6-month renewal of this grant at the end of your project, please also mention this here.
- Getting in touch with GLAMs and ask them about their next Wikipedia/Commons/Wikidata steps.
We’d love to hear any thoughts you have on how the experience of being an grantee has been so far. What is one thing that surprised you, or that you particularly enjoyed from the past 3 months?
- In comparison to the interim reports for PEG grants, the quality is substantial lower in outcome than with PEG. With PEG the report structure & parts made sense, were useful, there was actual specific output and described the actual project.
- The questions/text on this page what has been inserted read in an annoying way, it reads like a teacher telling to his/her children in the class in a bit patronising way.