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

We hope people find this interesting and will be happy to answer any questions. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I've not read most of this report yet; personally I found WMDE's structure easier to navigate for the casual reader wanting to take a bite here and there. --Nemo 06:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nemo, thanks for the comments. WMDE's report is certainly worth a read. Having a separate box for key initiatives within programmes looks to have made it easier to absorb information. The SWOT was difficult to follow, but then it took us a while to figure out a good way of arranging it within the constraints of mediawiki. Our impact report will be arranged differently next year, most likely based on the structure of our latest quarterly report. It's perhaps not quite as easy to compare as the WMDE report, but does it strike you as clearer? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments on WMUK’s impact report from FDC staff

Thank you for submitting this complete and detailed impact report, colleagues at Wikimedia UK! Congratulations on increasing the number of active volunteers. Wikimedia UK is finding ways to better measure more of its work, and is sharing important data like how files contributed are used, the number of articles created, number of files uploaded, quality of images, and whether new editors recruited through its activities are retained. While this information is very valuable, it is still difficult to collate across so many programs, so we appreciate Wikimedia UK is working on a more integrated approach to understanding these metrics across programs, much as you did with your program focus.

Thank you for sharing numbers describing the outcomes of the microgrants you funded, including the usage of photos contributed through these activities. This helps us better understand the impact of this program on the projects. We also appreciated your observations around the results likely to be achieved from different types of grants: for example, contest grants versus book grants.

Congratulations on hosting so many events in the past year. We hope Wikimedia UK is able to adapt its strategies in order to improve attendance at these events and get better results in terms of editors retained. We also hope to learn more about how the outcomes of events like the EduWiki conference move Wikimedia UK toward its goals around content and participation. Congratulations also on training 24 trained trainers through your trainer training. As you begin to start work in this area, we will be interested to see how Wikimedia UK is tracking what these trainees achieve over time toward Wikimedia UK’s goals around content and participation.

We are glad to learn of your successful work in Wales and in the future hope to learn more about how this work is related to your strategic goals. If the main goal of this program is to produce content about a specific region or range of topics, we hope to learn more about how this approach may be sustained or adapted to other areas. In the proposal form, Wikimedia UK identified keeping volunteers from burning out as an important concern. We would like to know more about the strategies Wikimedia UK developed around this as a result of funding, and we hope to learn more about how Wikimedia UK engages volunteers effectively while preventing burnout.

We are looking forward to better understanding the impact of your work as you implement more effective metrics and apply what you have been learning about which programs are most effective and how to your approaches. We hope your newly revised strategy and all of the work you have done to define your metrics and identify targets as well as stabilize the organization and governance structures pays off in the form of impactful program work.

Best regards, Winifred Olliff (FDC Support Team) talk 23:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)