Grants talk:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round1/Wikimedia UK/Progress report form/Q2

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Receipt of this report[edit]

Thank you, Richard and WMUK, for submitting a complete progress report for 2013 Q2. We look forward to reviewing it in detail in the coming weeks. Please continue to monitor this discussion page for our comments and questions, and contact us at any time if you have any questions or concerns. We will be in touch later today to notify you any changes to your eligibility status that may have resulted from the submission of this report. Best regards from FDC staff, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 18:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Winifred. We've made some efforts to shorten our programme list to be in line with the WMF's list (to make it easier to compare and contrast). This isn't an exact science, and it's not something we'd do normally, but I hope it helps. You can still see our full budget breakdown in the 'Spending during this quarter' section, and we are of course happy to answer any questions! Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Richard. I can already see that this is much easier to read. We will be reviewing the report in detail soon and will let you know if we have any questions. Best regards, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 07:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for this report[edit]

Thank you for this report and for making the requested changes to the organization of your financial report. With your amount of program activity, we recognize composing a report like this is a challenging task. At the same time, we encourage you to share more reflections in future reports, especially around your challenges. We hope for more details about the challenges you face in executing some of your program activities that may not be happening as planned.

We encourage all entities to also read the staff summary of this quarter’s progress reports in addition to these comments.

Best regards, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 03:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Appreciation[edit]

  • Congratulations on your achievements in the area of governance.
  • Thank you for your observations about the importance of expanding and deepening your core of experienced volunteers dispersed throughout the country. That is a valuable observation.
  • Congratulations on securing external funding from the Welsh Government.
  • Congratulations on placing the first Wikimedian in Residence in Scotland.
  • Thank you for making the suggested changes from the last report; we found it much easier to review and understand this report. Thank you as well for including detailed comments on the variances from the budget. It is helpful for us to understand what is anticipated in the coming quarters.
  • We appreciate the analysis of staff time you includ; it was nice to get a sense of what percentage of time is spent on different programs. Thank you for including this information.

Congratulations! Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 03:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

We would like to learn more[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions about this report. Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 03:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

  1. We notice you are spending less than expected and program activity seems to be lagging in Wales and Scotland due to a lack of editors. Could you kindly comment on how WMUK is adjusting its strategy for those programs as it is learning?
    It is not really owing to lack of editors it is lack of volunteer initiatives. We have always known that Wales and Scotland (and Northern Ireland) have been weakspots in out community activity programme. We want to change this. We have two approaches. One way is to embed a Wikimedian in Residence around whom events and activities can gel and new volunteers come forth. The other is through direct interventions such as meeetups, editathons etc. As a first step we allocated a sum in the budget to demonstrate intent and encourage community members to come forward. Scotland remains a challenge but we have now a WiR in Edinburgh and meetups starting. We hope to have our December board meeting in Edinburgh and share the weekend with events to build community capacity. We are however looking at re-allocating some of the budget in this financial year. Wales is another matter and I expect not only to fully spend the 5K in the budget but be asking for more as we now have a raft of opportunities.Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. Please tell us more about why and how you decided to create and pursue the ‘Living Paths Project’. Is the Wales Manager a contractor or a permanent employee? What is the planned duration of the project?
    The Wales Manager is a member of staff on a 12 month contract seconded to the project. The project is initially for 12 months but we have high hopes of an extension if it proves successful. Here is the background to the project it had a gestation period of almost a year.Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  3. Would you please share more information about the challenges faced around creating the ‘Virtual Learning Environment’? We are interested to know the reasons why it did not develop as planned.
    The Virtual Learning Environment is an open online course which is designed to teach people how to use Wikipedia. It is built in open source software called Moodle. The content has been written by Charles Matthews, a Wikipedian of long standing, and uploaded to the system as well as some appropriate visual elements. The idea is for the course to be editable directly in MediaWiki and the delays in the development have been due to this requirement – it hasn't been done before. The transclusion function which allows for content to be edited in MediaWiki and then automatically reflected in the Moodle VLE has needed to be written from scratch and has taken longer than anticipated. However, work is progressing well and we anticipate rolling out the VLE for user testing by the end of the Q3 reporting period. I hope this is useful but please do let me know if you'd like any further detail. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 10:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  4. What strategies are you developing to address the challenges around your grants programs?
    We have amalgamated the two funds (micro and macro), created a streamlines awarding system through a three person committee and been advertising it more widely. There is a debate as to how we maximise its potential. I am of the opinion it needs another year to become established. We can then assess the level of funding that is suitable and how effective it is.Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  5. Congratulations on hosting 14 meetups at 9 locations. Approximately how many people participated in each of those meetups and approximately how many unique participants were there in total?
    Katie Chan our volunteer organiser will respond to this. The meeting are, by tradition, independent although we help get new ones started. They are by intention quite informal which makes measurement quite challenging Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
    Hello Winifred,
    This is a diffcult question to answer as the information are not and cannot necessarily be collected given most of the meetups are not attended by Wikimedia UK's staff or trustees who might note down exactly who turned up. An estimate, based on what information are available, such as the sign up page and definite numbers where we have the information indicate approximately 100 people attended the 14 meetups, with about 60% unique participants. I hope that answers your question. -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  6. Please explain the role of WMUK in supporting Wikimania 2014.
    This is not a simple question and the answer is complicated. Different aspects of Wikimania 14 come under different controls. The Foundation for instance is managing accommodation and venue bookings, the community will determine much of the content, and the organisers will be making many detailed decisions. WMUK is determined to be as supportive as possible and is doing this in three clearly defined ways at the moment. More will follow I am sure. Firstly our fundraiser is working very closely to drive the local fundraising efforts. Secondly our Comms person is supporting the delivery team in this aspect of their work. Finally as a chapter we are offering financial support to make sure that there are structures in place to keep everything rolling at a local level. I cannot say more at the moment but we will shortly be making an announcement. Finally the UK community wants to offer its special skills and expertise in a way that is completely independent of the Chapter. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for future reports[edit]

  • In this Q2 report it seems you provide information for May, June and July, but the reporting period for Q2 is April, May and June. Please note the Quarter 3 (Q3) report should be for the reporting period July, August and September. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns about the reporting period.
We have a dilemma here. Our year is February to January and so our quarterly reporting systems, which are quite complex, cover OUR quarters. I know other chapters have this issue too and we discussed this at the run up to Q1. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • We need more information about your progress against each of your program’s objectives, including applicable metrics and the number of volunteers and staff involved. Currently these sections seem more focused on the activities done and the funds spent on these activities.
We are working hard to get reliable and timely stats for all that we do. I hope you can see the progress and that in Q3 we will improve yet again. We would benefit from the central tracking tool coming into operation as another way of measuring our success. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • In future reports, we would welcome more information about how your edit-a-thons attract different types of users. For example, you observed that one of your edit-a-thons attracted established editors, while another edit-a-thon attracted more new users. We are interested to explore why this is the case.
Of course. This is a rather bland term for the very wide variety of events it describes. Clear reporting will help distinguish the differences. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for providing information about the contributions of participants as long as one week after a training or workshop. In future reports, we would encourage you to report on contributions at least several months after the workshop or training has taken place in order to better understand if the participants continue to contribute after the events.
And the tracking tool would help with this. In a wider context we SHOULD be following up people more to encourage them to remain involved.Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking these suggestions into account. Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 03:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem, until the rapidly arriving Q3. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)