Grants talk:APG/Proposals/2013-2014 round1/Wikimedia Deutschland e.V./Proposal form

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Impact of anonymous Editors on Metrics[edit]

The drive for metrics requires tracking of user contributions. As about 20% of edits are by anonymous editors on German Wikipedia, what are your plans to assess the impact as a whole and excluding the anonymous editors.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your question, Arjunaraoc. Due to the nature and structure of our programs tracking user contributions "as a whole" or in parts would not be helpful. Instead we focus on tracking the generation of free content in context of the specific projects we support or realize by ourselves. Contributions by anonymous editors are in the best case a rare side-effect of our work. I hope this helps? Regards, Denis Barthel (WMDE) (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could not understand your answer. How do you measure free content- in terms of size in bytes or number of images? I could understand Wikidata and its measurements. Could you point to any other specifc example, in case that I might have missed while reading your proposal--Arjunaraoc (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Arjunaraoc. I appreciate to show you some examples: in case of photo-projects the counting of photos can be done by the amount of images in (sub-)categories like [1], more at [2]. In case of literature grants countings can be done through pages like [3]. In case you want to see even more examples, consider looking at this list, which lists many of these projects and their various outcomes in detail (German only, google-translated version might help). Best regards, Denis Barthel (WMDE) (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Denis Barthel (WMDE) for your response. As the anonymous edits is a significant percentage of German wikipedia (at 20%) I was concerned that the impact will be visible only when the overall percentage change is much larger. From your response, I understand that you are tracking specific metrics from identified contributors and anonymous users as well. After reviewing the new article creation edit trends, I realize that anonymous contributions have reduced to a much lower level over the past few years. I think that it may not be a significant concern from the metrics point of view. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some Questions[edit]

1) Your proposal notes that in 2014 you will "Promote the adoption of great ideas." Could you please explain what exactly that means? What is the standard used for 'great' ideas, to what audience will these 'great' ideas be promoted to and at what cost?

Hi Retrolord, the sentence “ Promote the adoption of great ideas” is a quote from the Wikimedia Strategic Plan (, page 15: Incourage Innovation, No. 3). The meaning of the quote is explained there, as well. We have used quotes from the Plan to illustrate which aspects of the movement strategic priorities our programs address. For example: the Volunteer Support program includes (among others) the aspect of promoting great ideas in the "encourage innovation" priority – through a better community support and communication we aim to facilitate the realisation and/or adoption of great ideas coming from the community that serve the movement's mission or other ideas that serve the movement and the volunteers (e.g. Wikidata Commons tagging system, technical support for volunteers, funding opportunities for volunteers and relaunch of the community grant program, organisation of volunteer events etc.) --Kasia Odrozek (WMDE) (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2) Your proposal notes that in 2014 you plan to perform a "Public campaign day on April 23 – World Book and Copyright Day". Why was World Book and Copyright Day chosen? Is Wikimedia Deutschland planning to use money granted to advance a political agenda in terms of copyright? If this is not the plan, why has World Book and Copyright Day been chosen as a "milestone"? You note at the end of your proposal that these funds won't be used for political or legislative purposes, to me it seems anything but.

Regarding the first part of your question (for the second part see below) I was asked by Jan Engelmann (WMDE) to post the following response:
We believe that copyright is one of Wikimedia's core issues and at the same time one of the main fields of expertise. The internet and online projects like ours are changing the world, its culture and the way information is transmitted. This oftentimes leads to conflicts between old and new projects. These conflicts are at the very core of the Intellectual Property Rights frictions today. The reason why UNESCO renamed its World Book Day to World Book and Copyright Day ist exactly the intention to get the conversation about all of this started. The idea of this day is to start debates about "strengths and weaknesses of different kinds of products, about the nature of copyright today, about the role of libraries relative to on-line knowledge, about the meaning of 'authorship' in a world of blogs and wikis" [1]. This statement by UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova from 2011 addresses the global processes we are very much part of and that are fundamental to our own existence. It would be therefore grossly negligent to stay away from the conversation.
A further, practical, reason for this is that the World Book and Copyright Day is not "taken up" by associations and institutions in Brussels. There will be few competing events, giving us a chance of higher visibility, one of our intended short-term outcomes. --Kasia Odrozek (WMDE) (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3) You note that "Long-term we are planning to rely on four pillars of funding:" Could you explain what percentage of total future income is expected to be derived from each of the 4 'pillars'?

Due to the large amount of funding requested by your chapter, your cooperation in answering these questions would be appreciated. Particularly question 2. Retrolord (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Retrolord, I will try and answer questions 2 and 3, while a colleague will attend to the first one.
Regarding the usage of FDC funds for political purposes, we cleared this during last years´ FDC proposal with the legal department of the WMF: While we cannot use any of the 1.8 Mio Euro requested from the FDC for political purposes, that does not hinder us to use other funds for such purposes. For example, we are planning to receive more than 400.000 € in membership fees, and we are raising donations from non-WMF websites as well. This alone will give us more than we need to fund our political programs.
4 pillars of funding. In the long run, I am planning to use all funds WMDE receives through the FDC process and around 2/3 of all direct donations (so pillars 1 and 2) for programmatic work directed directly towards the Wikimedia projects: Volunteer support, software development, etc.
All other activities that are directed towards a broader approach to advance Free Knowledge, should be funded by other sources, such as (partly) pillar 1, and pillars 3 and 4.
Now, for the percentages: I would expect the FDC funds to be not more than 1/4 to 1/3 of our overall funding (but this depends heavily on how the software development is growing over the next years); another 1/4 to 1/3 of our income will be donations received by WMDE directly, leaving 1/3 to 1/2 to membership fees and cooperation with other grant-making institutions.
These percentages can only give you an indication of where we are planning to go in the next 4 to 5 years; a lot of variables (future focus of the WMF / the movement, future of the FDC process, future of software development by WMDE, future strategic goals of WMDE) will have influence on this.
I hope that helps?--Pavel Richter (WMDE) (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Here's a group that actually does some internationally useful stuff - Wikidata, Commons support. You have my endorsement. --Piotrus (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Program title"[edit]

Just a housekeeping matter: the blue boxes outlining how WMDE intends to spend its funds are each entitled "Program title". I think this is unintentional - could someone take a look? This, that and the other (talk) 10:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, it was indeed unintentional - I have already contacted the FDC staff about it. Thank you!--Kasia Odrozek (WMDE) (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why? It's a wiki, and it's clear to see, that the text was text was unintentionally hidden. I changed it. --Emha (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Emha, Theoretically we shouldn't introduce any changes to the proposal after the submission deadline, the procedure is to request it first, that's why I did it. Thanks for your help!:)--Kasia Odrozek (WMDE) (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request to FDC staff to approve minor changes in the proposal (insert missing program titles)[edit]

In the proposal we unintentionally forgot to fill in the "program titles" in the blue boxes. I would like to request your approval to insert the following program titles after the submission deadline:

Program 1: Volunteer Support Program

Program 2: Institutional Partnerships Program

Program 3: Legal and Social Framework Program

Thank you in advance --Kasia Odrozek (WMDE) (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, --Emha (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This request is approved: thank you for suggesting it, Kasia. 15:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Subject-matter expert input[edit]

As part of the annual plan proposal assessment and evaluation process, WMDE has requested the input of Erik Moeller in his role as Deputy Director and VP of Engineering and Product Development at Wikimedia Foundation. As outlined in the FDC process Erik was asked to base his input on the following template [4]. --Kasia Odrozek (WMDE) (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nearly half of the funds that are available?[edit]

Hi there, I'm a long time reader, first time poster. What caught my eye on the FDC-Proposal from Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. is, that they request almost half of the funds available. Considering that the German chapter itself is receiving already funds from Germany, I think it is a bit unfair to other chapters. Especially since WMDE is not representing the majority of German Wikipedians, but only a small percentage of those. --Odeesi (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although WMDE receives a lot of criticism from parts of the German community at times, no other representation of volunteers exists beyond the informal discussions on de:WP meta and discussion pages. WMDE is the only supporting organisation für German Wikipedia (and, of course, as pointed out earlier, supporting Wikipedia woldwide). --Jossi2 (talk) 10:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but that is NOT true. The German-speaking Wikipedia (it is not a Germany-exclusive) is also represented by the Austrian and the Swiss chapter. As a sidenote WMDE receives funds every day from Germany as you can see on [5], e.g. in 2012 2,707,265.66 €, of which they used already 1,649,057.18€ on personell expenses as you can read here. --Odeesi (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course you are right that de:WP is not the German but the German language Wikipedia and is represented by the Austrian and Swiss chapters, too. I also share (to some degree) your criticism of the high office and staff expenses of WMDE. But considering your argument that "WMDE is not representing the majority of German Wikipedians", I adhere to the fact that no other formal representation of wikipedians in Germany exists. The proposal should be measured by its usefulness for the Wikipedia community as a whole, not by an appraisal of WMDE's overall financial situation. --Jossi2 (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
50-70 mio USD are available, and they request 2.4 mio, which is less than 5%. if something can be critizised, than if it is appropriate to only give 10% of the income under control of the FDC. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to clarify that WMDE’s mission is not to represent German Wikipedians but to support them. Our support is availaible to every Wikipedian or Wikimedian of the German community. Beside this support we are developing software that is available to and meant to benefit the whole Wikimedia movement.The third big field of our activity is our engagement in the cultural and political context to advance the movement’s mission in the society. --Pavel Richter (WMDE) (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You claim quit some money, as mentioned above. What would be the impact if you wouldn't receive the requested money?

In your proposal I see a lot of new employees with an intended contract for two years. Does this proposal cover the costs for both 2014 and 2015, or can we expect a new request from WMDE to cover the costs in 2015?
Thanks for your answer, RonnieV (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the first question: Our FDC proposal is a plan and the finance section is a projection. We cannot take any sort of revenue for granted as they depend on pretty uncalculable factors (e.g. we are dependent on how the fundraising campaign will go or how our membership will develop).
The numbers we calculated for 2014 are targetes figures and will have to be adjusted if the funding plan will not work out the way we projected. This applies both in case we don’t receive as much money as planned and in case when we receive more than planned (e.g. we inherit an amount of money).
Regarding the second question: The proposal is meant to cover the costs for 2014 (it is based on our Annual Plan) and you can expect that WMDE will submit a proposal for 2015 next year. As for the two years contracts: it is always a challenge to find the right balance between the will to offer a professional perspective for qualified employees and the fact that our funding is being approved on a yearly basis. We are trying to cope with it by offering two years contracts to new employees.--Pavel Richter (WMDE) (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concerning the Fact Check program[edit]

I did not understand the status of the Fact Check Program in the current moment. And if it is still running, what are the type of guarantees held to maintain the neutral point of view and avoid lobbying. Could you kindly elaborate on these points? --Asaifm (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Asaifm, the ZDFcheck program was scheduled to last until the en:German federal election, 2013 on September 22, 2013. The Wikipedian in Residence work ended with the scheduled completion of this program. We are in the process of publishing a final report on this program that looks into user participation and the creation of freely licensed works. -- Mathias Schindler (WMDE) (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the Fact Check program was and is very opposed by the community of the german-language Wikipedia as you can see in this survey. While there were 25 votes casted for the fact check program, 86 (strongly) opposed it. --Odeesi (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Odeesi, 86 opposing votes are the pure numbers. This is my analysis of the opposing votes: 36% refuse collaboration with the public broadcaster ZDF because it is so rich (but ZDF paid the project), or they generally don't like public broadcasters (but public broadcasters could become a Wikipedia partner like the NASA with tons of quality content; therefor they are named in WMDE strategic plans). 17% are in fear of misuse of the trademark Wikipedia. 17% see no relevance for Wikipedia (might be a standard text module of some voters). 9% refuse the project because it would fail anyway (can't comment on this; still laughing). 8% assume that Wikipedia authors might be withdrawn from Wikipedia (no Wikipedian was harmed during this project; participants mainly did not edit Wikipedia before). 6% refuse because the project was introduced by Wikimedia Deutschland. 5% see a violation of NPOV . And 2% make constructive counter suggestions. -- I think this says more about the discussion culture inside the German Wikipedia than about the project. --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it may also have to do with the fact that Wikimedia Germany is (as often) trying to do stuff that the germanspeaking community doesn't agree with. Same with the flyer that WMDE created and put on the servers of WikiPedia just because someone was apparently too incompetent to change a link destination to their own servers. Sorry, but Wikimedia Deutschland is often trying to change stuff in the German-speaking (NOT GERMAN) wikipedia without consent of the community and thereby (directly or indirectly) wasting funds that could be used better. So yeah, I hope that the people who decide this proposal will do a wise decision and if they grant the full amount of US$, they should put some requirements with that. --Odeesi (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has to do with the fact that Wikimedia Deutschland is trying things and a pack of trolls in Wikipedia in German Language are opposing everything Wikimedia Deutschland is doing. If mean that fund could be used better than Wikimedia Deutschland is doing, please say how. Everyone around me is trying to do best for Free Knowledge and Wikipedia. Leave the path of negativity and say what should be done, not what not. Even Wikimedia Deutschlands fails are better than this, because they can fail next time better. --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, it's always the others to blame, Sebastian. And always easier to call somebody a troll instead of trying to figure out why there was a majority voting against the fact check bullshit. Instead of putting everything settled and done for discussion, maybe WMDE should involve the german(-speaking) community BEFORE they settle stuff. --Odeesi (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too expensive[edit]

The requested amount of money is too high. Simply make awesome software and people will come. --Biggerj1 (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, I agree. Great content is what attracts people to Wikipedia, not FTEs. Galileo01 (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree. The amount requested seems absurdly high compared to the other proposals. Wallets needing new linings? Slashdottir (talk) 02:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is hard to compare WMDE’s plan to other proposals as our planned activities differ from other Chapters in some relevant aspects. The most prominent example is our activity in the field of Software Development. It is meant to benefit the global movement and approx. 25% of our employees are software developers. Also, it is worth remembering that we are supporting a very large and mature Wikimedia community with de.wikipedia. Further, due to the fact that we have a longer development path behind us than other Chapters (which of course develop in a way that fits them best) we are more advanced in some fields of activity than others. This is also reflected in the scope of activities we are planning to conduct.
Note that all activities are grounded in change models ( and are thus contributing to achieving our objectives in a measurable way. The requested amount of money would seem indeed too high if we weren’t to achieve our objectives or the way how we plan to get there would be unclear or unrealistic. This, I believe, is not the case and instead we are looking forward to advancing the movements mission by approaching the objectives in a well-reasoned and evaluable way.--Pavel Richter (WMDE) (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wish I could raise such amount making a tagging system for Wikidata... -- 20:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two people working full time on international affairs?[edit]

I don't know much about Wikimedia DE, but do you really need two full-time international affairs employees? Every week, Wikimedia DE has 80 hours-worth of international work? Maybe, just maybe, you could re-think your staff allocations and find some room for improvement there. Galileo01 (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your question, Galileo01. My simple answer would be: Yes, we do. But please let me give you a brief understanding of the work of our international affairs team, cited from our annual plan. “As free knowledge is not subject to national borders, our programs, projects, and decisions all have an international dimension. The International Affairs Unit promotes communication and networking between actors in the Wikimedia movement around the world. It ensures that our experiences, materials, and tools are disseminated around the world. We aim to foster collaborative projects and joint programs that will extend the scope of our work and provide fresh ideas and inspiration.” Further, the International Affairs Unit picks up on issues in the global community and regularly updates Wikimedia Deutschland and the communities with relevant information. It aims to provide both with the necessary advice and support in order to ensure that our interests are better represented in international decisions. The two staff members do not only work closely together with the other departments and advise the board and executive director, they are also responsible for projects like the Chapters Dialogue, the Wikimedia Conference 2014 programme and the Chapters Village at Wikimania 2014. I hope this helps clarifying the important role of this unit for us and for the movement. Best, --Pavel Richter (WMDE) (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subject-matter expert feedback on the proposal[edit]

Pavel requested that I provide some subject-matter expert on the proposal (consistent with the FDC process for subject-matter expert input) from my perspective as VP of Engineering/Product at WMF. I currently oversee a department of ~90 engineers, designers, product managers, and other staff. The chapter's proposal would make software engineering a permanent practice, and continue development on Wikidata, and my comments are intended to primarily reflect on this aspect of the proposal. However, since the questionnaire also asks about the proposal as a whole, I offer some limited feedback at that level as well.

What is your overall reaction to the plan as proposed?[edit]

In general, my advice would be to continually find ways to narrow the chapter's focus on projects which achieve the highest positive impact, thereby enabling it to do the best possible job on these projects.

In this respect, the decision to make software engineering work a permanent, well-resourced function seems very wise. Ultimately, the work of the Wikimedia movement is enabled by technology. Improving the effectiveness of collaboration in our projects through technology can have a large multiplier effect on the movement as a whole. Wikidata is a beautiful example of this. There are lots of numbers that demonstrate Wikidata's success, and the "State of Wikidata" presentation at Wikimania 2013 includes many of the salient data points. However, I find that its importance is best illustrated by way of a simple example: The Franco-Prussian War, as viewed through Wikidata, thanks to an application developed by Magnus Manske.

Imagine this kind of timeline and map being directly included in the relevant Wikipedia article. This example illustrates a few things:

  1. As Wikidata unlocks new data-types (e.g. geo-coordinates), new applications become possible.
  2. Uses of information from Wikidata are not limited to use in templates - entirely new applications with educational value can be built from it.
  3. As we increase Wikidata's role in our projects, positive feedback loops to improve the data will likely emerge.
  4. Wikidata can be the "glue" the connects information across Wikimedia projects in new and useful ways.

So, I strongly support continued investment in Wikidata in particular. If the chapter stopped investing in the project, WMF would not be able to pick up continued development in the near term due to all development resources being committed to other high priority initiatives such as the VisualEditor, mobile experience improvements, improving the onboarding of new contributors, and the development of a new discussion system.

The focus on tagging of media files as one of the next frontiers for the project makes sense to me -- replacing the monolingual category system in Wikimedia Commons with a proper multilingual tagging mechanism is long overdue, and Wikidata provides what's required to accomplish it.

I would caution the chapter to retain flexibility in the specific direction the project should take, however. We've still got a long way to go in unlocking all the required data types that make it possible to represent infoboxes in Wikidata, for example, and we're not yet doing a good job tracking data usage across our projects. Improving the scalability of the project and the approach to data storage and querying may take on greater precedence as the usage of the project grows. And so on. Demonstrating Wikidata's impact, broadly speaking, should be the big picture goal here.

I'm a bit more skeptical about other software engineering work that's alluded to in the plan (e.g. the Digital Openness Benchmark sounds interesting, but engineering is one of our scarcest resources and should be largely reserved for things we must do), but I trust the chapter to prioritize rationally.

Do you believe Wikimedia Deutschland is qualified to undertake this?[edit]

Yes. Wikimedia Germany has demonstrated its ability to not only build a high-performing team working on the Wikidata project, but to do so in close partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation to ensure that we coordinate on architectural issues, deployment, and operations support.

What are the major strengths of the plan, from your perspective?[edit]

Recognizing software engineering as a key function. There are some unique factors which have enabled the chapter to be successful in software engineering practices in general, and Wikidata in particular. This includes earlier experiences such as managing the development of TIFF support for MediaWiki, Denny Vrandečić's leadership role in Semantic MediaWiki, Daniel Kinzler's long term employment as a software engineer with the chapter and his involvement in Wikimedia's technical community, Pavel Richter's management experience, and the fact that a significant part of the structured data / semantic wiki community is based in or near Germany. So it would be no doubt difficult for other Wikimedia organizations to replicate this path, but given software engineering's critical enabling function for the Wikimedia movement, I do think it's worth having a larger conversation about how we can support the development of software engineering practices in other movement organizations.

What are the major weaknesses of the plan, from your perspective?[edit]

If anything, I'd like to see more focus on software engineering work going forward, recognizing again the chapter's unique qualifications and track record to pursue this work. I don't have specific insights on whether other programmatic work by the chapter is effective or not, but I know that true excellence requires sacrifice to ensure the organization's attention can be continually spent on optimizing the things that it wants to be excellent at.

If the plan were executed, what if any suggestions would you have for Wikimedia Deutschland, that you feel would increase their likelihood of success?[edit]

Foster a culture of excellence in engineering/product development and work towards phasing out programs that achieve the lowest impact on the mission.

If the plan were executed, do you think it would make a small, medium or large contribution to the goals of the Wikimedia movement, and to its ability to achieve global impact?[edit]

I believe the work on Wikidata is having a very large (dare I say historic) positive impact on the goals of the Wikimedia movement.

Does the plan propose to break new ground in ways that could create important learnings for the global Wikimedia movement? In other words, if the plan is executed, will the Wikimedia movement have learned anything new and important that could be applied outside this plan, that would help it achieve its global goals? Would that learning be a small, medium or large contribution?[edit]

The Wikidata project is generating tons of insights for the movement as a whole. The fact that the chapter is building out a permanent software engineering function is an important precedent for the movement. Personally, I'm very interested in where the Wikidata team is adopting development practices that WMF should copy.

Do you believe the budget (for the area that you are particularly evaluating) is feasible?[edit]

Yes, and it's informed by past spending. I would again caveat that it's normal in building a project like Wikidata that new priorities may emerge as the project grows, and this may also necessitate changes in mid to long term resourcing.

--Erik Möller, 04:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for all entities from FDC staff[edit]

Please answer a few questions about your entity that we are asking of all entities. The purpose of these questions is to gain clarity about the information provided in your proposal, and also to request information that we can easily understand across all entities. We ask that you respond to these questions within 14 days, so that the FDC will have time to consider your responses during the deliberations. We apologize if any of these questions seem redundant. Thank you for your attention to these questions, and please let us know if you need any clarifications or have any questions for us. Thank you! Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 00:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear WInifred, please note that i'm answering all questions on behalf of WMDE's Executive Director Pavel Richter.--Kasia Odrozek (WMDE) (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please confirm your rates of growth[edit]

The FDC reviews rates of growth, which are calculated using the amounts provided in the currency requested in the proposal, to understand each entity’s proposed growth in total budget, and proposed growth in movement resources (what the entity is requesting from the FDC this year compared with what the entity received from the FDC last year) requested. We are asking you to confirm these numbers here so we may be sure we are understanding your request.

  1. Please confirm the amount you received from the FDC for the current FDC funding period in the currency you received it.

EUR 1,376,923

  1. Your total budget in 2013 listed in Table 3 is 5,260,000 EUR and your total proposed budget for 2014 listed in Table 2 is 5,610,000 EUR. Therefore, we calculate a proposed growth rate in your total budget of 7%. Please confirm that this matches your records.
    Clarification: In your annual plan for 2013, and in your proposal last year, and in your annual plan for 2014, you list a budget of 5,750,000 EUR, which does not match the number of 5,260,000 EUR included here. Would you please clarify what is included in these different amounts? Also, do either of these amounts include your 280,000 EUR budgeted fundraising costs for 2013 or should those be added? (The 5,610,000 EUR amount included for your 2014 budget here also includes the 440,000 EUR fundraising budget for 2014.)

The number 5.260.000 EUR that you can find in Table 3 doesn’t include the 280.000 Fundraising cost of WMFG, we are sorry for the confusion. You can find the 280.000 in the proposal 2012/13 though: 140.000 in the staff expenses section and 140.000 in the proposed expenses by pogramm section. ( Below you can find the total budget (WMDE and WMFG) and how it was adjusted throughout the year (which is the reason why the numbers don’t seem to match with the original proposal). We have calculated the growth rate respectively.

Total budgets comprising both WMDE and WMFG costs:

  • Total spending budget 2014: 5.610.000
  • Total spending budget 2013 (planned in annual plan/proposal): 6.030.000

->Growth rate in total budget before budget adjustment: (-6,96%)

  • Total spending budget 2013 (according to adjusted budget after Q1): 5.540.000

-> - Growth rate in total budget after budget adjustment after Q1: (+1,26%)

  • Total spending budget 2013 (according to adjusted budget after Q3): 4.218.359

-> Growth rate in total budget after budget adjustment after Q3: (+32,99%)

To sum it up: The growth rate in 2014 in relation to our current budget 2013 is 32,99% (4.218.359 to 5.610.000)

Clarification on the difference betweeen spending budgets 2013:

  • Regarding the first adjustement (after Q1): The budget item "Wikidata2" which is to be found in the proposal and which amounted to EUR 765,000 has been withdrawn as large donor funds were not aquired and we didn’t anticipate they would be. With the Boards’ decision we have adjusted the project plan and funds for Wikidata in 2013 accordingly. In the revenues section the budget item "Transfers from Wikimedia Fördergesellschaft (direct donations to WMDE)" has been adjusted by Supervisory Board resolution in order to allocate additional funds totaling EUR 140,000 to secure the continuation of Wikidata. The budget item has been changed from EUR 1,500,000 to EUR 1,640,000. In the spending section the item Wikidata 2 was reduced from EUR 630,000 to EUR 140,000. This difference amounting to EUR 490,000 is the cause of the difference between the spending budget in the proposal 2012/2013 and the adjusted spendig budget 2013 in the proposal 2013/2014.
  • Regarding the second adjustement (after Q3): We have adapted the budgeted figures based on our current expectations. These figures still have to be officially approved by the Supervisory Board. We have explained the budget adjustments in the last column in the financial section of Q3 Report for 2012/2013.

  1. Your movement resources in 2013 are 1,376,923 EUR, and your request for 2014 listed in Table 2 is 1,800,000 EUR. Therefore, we calculate a proposed growth rate in movement resources of 31%. Please confirm that this matches your records.
We confirm that this is correct.

Clarity around exchange rates used in this proposal[edit]

Please state how you calculated the exchange rate used in your proposal to provide the estimates provided in this proposal. Note that FDC allocations will be made in your requested currency (your local currency, in most cases), and amounts in US dollars are provided only so that entities and the FDC may understand allocations across entities. The FDC will use the exchange rate on the date of the proposal submission (1 October 2013) as calculated by Oanda, to ensure consistency across proposals.

We were converting the figures in our proposal draft into dollars on September 27, 2013 therefore we have taken the exchange rate of 1,35 as of 09/27/2013 according to ECB [6].

Questions about your entity’s staffing plan and strategy[edit]

Many entities plan to grow their staff in the coming year, and we would like some more information about each entity’s staffing strategy.

  1. If your entity is increasing its staff by one or more people, please explain how your board and, if applicable, the staff person managing your new staff, will handle the increased responsibilities of managing more staff.

We have a good management structure in place, with Pavel Richter as ED and four Department Heads, which manage the personnel within the departments. With the proposed new hire of a Chief of Administration and HR, we will be in a situation where no manager has more than 10 people reporting to him / her. The Chief of Administration and HR will also manage all HR related issues (e.g. contracts, professional development, legal issues).

  1. Do you think the decision to increase the number of your staff will change the way your organization or your staff interacts with volunteers or change the attitude of volunteers toward your organization? Will the role of volunteers shift as a result of the change in staffing? How were community members a part of the decision to grow your staff?

WMDE employs staff since 2006, so we have a good understanding how hiring new people affects our relationship with volunteers. So I do not believe that it will change our relationship in a negative way. On the contrary, we are hiring Software Engineers, Community Support, GLAM Program Managers, and other positions that will foster the volunteer engagement even further. In addition, the administrative hires will ensure that WMDE further enhances its internal processes, and therefore be better in planning and executing programs and activities, all of which have close ties into the volunteer communities.

Regarding the participation of community members in growing our staff: We have a range of ways to engage the community in decisions concerning WMDE e.g. encouraging their involvement in the budget planning via online and offline acitvities, as well as collecting feedback throughout the year (For details see the respective answer in the proposal: However there is no process in place explicitly for engaging community members in decision to grow staff.

  1. Who on your staff is responsible for your organization’s fundraising activities in 2014?

In 2014 WMDE will have a Fundraising-Team of 4 staff (3,4FTE) and up to 3 working students with Till Mletzko as Head of Fundraising. Till reports directly to Pavel Richter.

Organizational context[edit]

We have noticed a few ideas that are included in many of this round’s proposals, and would like more information about each entity’s context.

  1. Growth: We have reviewed your response to the question in the proposal form about your proposed rate of growth in budget and in movement resources. The rates of growth in movement resources for all entities in this round are at or significantly greater than the recommended maximum of 20% in the FDC Framework funding guidelines. It would be helpful to the FDC and FDC staff if you have any further details to justify your proposed rate of growth. Why do you believe your rates of growth are sustainable and that your plans are feasible? This request is also informed by the context of current underspending of movement resources (FDC allocations and WMF grants).

The main reason for us to exceed the 20% sealing of growth is the establishment of the new Software Development Department. When we started Wikidata, we received donations from four large contributors, and we were able to finance all development costs as well as all administrative costs out of these donations. With the decision to continue Software Development in general (with Wikidata being the biggest part of it for the foreseeable future), we also deceided to pay for it out of the regular channels of financing. That leaves us with EUR 810,000 direct costs, as well as approx. EUR 200,000 in indirect costs for this department alone, which need to be alloted for in our regular budget. We are able to finance a part of this from money not spent in 2013, but only a part of it. So, for our 2014 FDC proposal, we are in a unique situation to ask for a larger amount than the proposed 20%. The future growth of Software Development at Wikimedia Deutschland is very much dependent on the needs of the overall movement, and especially the needs of the Wikimedia Foundation. I do not plan to exceed the 20% sealing in the future, but in cases where WMDE takes on larger engineering tasks, this might change. Regarding sustainability: WMDE has a track record of managing growth at even steeper rates successfully, so I am not worried about the administrative and organizational tasks ahead. For the very first time, WMDE significantly underspent in 2013 (by 500.000 €); main reasons are that two cost intensive projects (CPB with 250.000 € and WCA support with 200.000 €) did not get off the ground. And with the new Software Development Department already in the planning, we decided not to re-allocate these funds to other areas, but to use them to (partly) finance software development in 2014.

  1. Partnerships: How does your entity define partnership? Do you have a process in place for bringing on new partners? What commitments do you require from the partner to begin the relationship?

Partnerships in the context of WMDE mean every form of cooperation, which is aimed to liberate content for Wikimedia platforms in the short or in the long run. This may include consultation (guiding how to choose a proper license, guiding how to edit according to the community rules, guidung how to upload media files on Wikimedia Commons), publicly accessible information (booklets for GLAMs, schools and universities, conferences about topics like OER and cultural heritage) or hands-on-projects like Wikipedians-in-Residence, Editathons or Hackathons. Bringing on new partners is guaranteed by community engagement on the local level, advice by WMDE members, or platforms like “Zugang gestalten” (“Shaping access”) which serves as a central hub for the Free Culture movement and the German GLAM scene. Every potential partner has to comply with the brand policy of the WMF and the COI policy of Wikipedia. Furthermore, any product or documentation resulting from a cooperation with WMDE has to be published under a CC-BY-SA license.

  1. Grants: If your entity has a microgrants, minigrants, travel grants, or other grants program, how much funding in your budget is committed to grants? What is your process for selecting who is able to receive grants and which grants to fund? How do you know if your microgrants are leading to good outcomes?

Wikimedia Deutschland runs two separate grant programs. This includes a large grant program called the “Community Project Budget” (250.000 €, up to now run by an advisory board of volunteers), which similar to the Individual Engagement Grant of the WMF provides large project grants to community-members. The other grant programs are bundled in the “Community Budget” (570.000) due to larger flexibility when providing it. A large amount of it is dedicated to the communitys “daily work” (e.g. computer and photographical equipment, literature scholarships, travel grants) and community event support. The selecting process is basically grounded on the grantees experience, the measuring obviously differs throghout the many programs. The outcomes of grants are mostly reported by the grantees themselves, e.g. in case of photography related projects photos are being counted by the amount of images in the Commons-Category:Supported by Wikimedia Deutschland or, more specialized, in (sub-)categories like [1]. In case of literature scholarships they are being counted through pages like [2].

Questions for all entities about operating reserves[edit]

We need more clarity on the state of the operating reserves of all entities. Operating reserves are defined as liquid, unrestricted assets available for an organization to use as a cushion, and to cover the costs of operations in case of unanticipated expenses or loss of revenue.

  1. Please summarize your strategy or policy around holding operating reserves, and your procedure for determining the amount of operating reserves needed by your organization.
  2. What amount of funds are in your entity's operating reserves right now?

We currently hold EUR 50,000 as an operating reserve. WMDE, as the oldest and biggest chapter, has long-term contracts and other obligations. Yet we finance our budget on a year-by-year basis, as all other chapters do. This is good, because it keeps us agile and we need to justify our approach and our programs on a yearly basis, both within the movement (FDC!), and outside of it (donors!). On the other side, this approach has a high risk factor for the organization, especially when we continue with mission-critical projects such as Wikidata and Software Development in general. Because we are, as a chapter, in a unique situation here, I will address this risk with the WMF, namely Garfield Byrd, in the near future. If we come to the conclusion that the current approach is sustainable, than we will continue to work without a larger operating reserve. Or we will, together with the WMF, find other solutions to address this risk.

  1. Is your entity planning to use money from your 2013 FDC funds allocation (your current funds allocation) to add to your organization’s reserves, and if so approximately how much money are you planning to add to your reserves?

See answer above, we are currently not planning to grow our reserve.

  1. Have you budgeted any funds for your operating reserves in this proposal (your proposal for 2014) and if so, how much?


Questions about WMDE’s proposal from FDC staff[edit]

These are some questions and points of clarification that arose while reading your proposal. These questions are an opportunity to clarify information in your proposal for the FDC and for FDC staff. Thank you in advance for your attention to these questions. We ask that you respond to these questions within 14 days, so that the FDC will have time to consider your responses during the deliberations. In a few cases, we may need to follow up with you after you respond to gain further clarity around your answers. Thanks again on behalf of FDC staff! Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 00:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions about the financial information listed in this proposal[edit]

Please clarify some of the financial information you provided in your proposal, so we may be sure we are understanding it correctly.

  1. We have reviewed the expenses you listed in Table 8 of your proposal form as well as your annual plan linked to where we requested a detailed budget; however, we did not see a budget document that breaks down the large line items included in your budget. Are there other more detailed budget documents available that you are able to share with the FDC?

We are more than happy to prepare a more detailed break-down for the FDC that reflects the current calculations and provide it to you next week. Plase see also the answer to the question below.about the rationale for including large items in the budget.

Update: You can find the detailed break-down budget 2014 here. This document reflects the currect calculations and may be still subject to change.
  1. The following items in your budget are greater than 100,000 Euro. Even if a detailed budget document is not available, we ask you to break down these line items into smaller expense categories so we may understand how these funds are allocated. If exact numbers are not yet available, you may provide estimates:
    • Volunteer Support Program: Support for more volunteers:
  • Local activities €55,000
  • Support for non-Wikipedia Wikimedia-Platforms €45,000
    • Institutional Partnerships: Pilot projects at institutions:
  • 35.000 Euro from Politics & Society Department will be invested in two GLAM-Hackathons (plus project manager fee), legal consultation for proper re-usage of open content, and information material about Wikimedia Commons.
  • Due to the current sick leave of the Head of Education & Knowledge Department, we will provide the missing numbers (regarding the part of the objective that will be executed by the Education& Knowledge Department) next week.
  • Department Education & Knowledge: Wikipedia Academy (30.000 €), Cooperation „Digital Society“: German Federal Ministry of Research and Education (20.000 €), Education Programs (40.000 €)
    • International Affairs:
  • Chapters/Movement Dialogue: 58,000 €
  • Communication, support, programmatic work and travel expenses: 51,500 €
  • Movement and event support (incl. Wikimedia Conference): 45,000 €
  • Wikimania 2014 (scholarships, Chapters Village, programmatic work): 25,500 €
    • Communications:
  • Informational material for the departments and across all three programs: €70,000
  • Informational material for community members who do GLAM outreach (2014 emphasis on local partnerships) or who reach out to the science/educational sector: €40,000 (see program 2, institutional partnerships)
  • Give-away items for volunteers, specifically for meet-ups, editathons, community conferences: €30,000
  • Web campaigning for free knowledge (video/audio): €25,000
  • translations (movement outreach): €20,000
  • communication with Chapter members: €20,000
  • media and data analysis/evaluation costs: €15,000
  • Chapter-related informational material, including annual and other reports: €10,000
  • travel expenses (community events): €10,000
    • Fundraising:
  • Operation (Database and Server Hosting): 33.500
  • Donation receipts: 90.000
  • KMPG yearly auditing: 6.500
  • Banking Costs/Transaction fees: 100.000
  • Accounting: 10.000
  1. Please explain here your rationale for including these very large line items in your budget.

Firstly, as the total proposed budget amounts to 5.160.000 EUR, items of 100.000 EUR do not seem to be to large or problematic in relation to the total amount. Further, the FDC process causes us to start our annual planning in june of a previous year. We calculate the budget based on past and so far spending, as well as programmatic focuses we plan for the next year. For obvious reasons, an exact project planning for next year is not finalised at the point we post the proposal. The communities give input and feedback for the project planning as well, which is an additional factor that is difficult to forecast. To sum it up: The later in the year, the more precise we can get in the detailed budget planning. As mentioned in the above answer, we will provide the FDC with a more detailed break-down next week based on the current numbers. Please note that the calculations may still be subject to change in the future as we need a certain flexibility for reallocation within the programms.

  1. Please explain what you mean by the item “Carry forward from 2013” listed in Table 4 with a value of 500,000 Euro.

For the very first time, WMDE significantly underspent in 2013; main reasons are that two cost intensive projects (CPB with 250.000 € and WCA support with 200.000 €) did not get off the ground. In addition, there was some underspending in other programatic areas (see our Q3-Report to the FDC for details). Also, we had unexpected revenues in 2013, for example our membership dues, planned to be 150.000, turned out to be more than 300.000 €. With the new Software Development Department already in the planning for 2014, we decided not to re-allocate these funds to other areas, but to use them to (partly) finance software development in 2014.

Questions about programs[edit]

  1. Thank you for explaining the shift in WMDE’s strategy to focusing on software development (such as Wikidata). What do you believe this implies for the overall planned rates of growth for WMDE over the next few years? What are some programs you will deprioritize as you focus on software development?

I would like to address this question from a funding perspective. I plan to clearly differentiate four pillars of funding for Wikimedia Deutschland:

  1. Movement-related funding: FDC
  2. Direct donations to WMDE
  3. Membership fees
  4. Cooperations with other associations and foundations in order to implement grant-sponsored projects.

In the long run, I am planning to use all funds WMDE receives through the FDC process and around 2/3 of all direct donations (so pillars 1 and 2) for programmatic work directed directly towards the Wikimedia projects: Volunteer support, software development, etc. All other activities that are directed towards a broader approach to advance Free Knowledge, should be funded by other sources, such as (partly) pillar 2, and pillars 3 and 4. In both areas, we will continue to evaluate all our programs, projects and activities, and we will face out any low-impact initiative. For all activities that are not directed towards Wikimedia projects in a direct way, we will switch to funding from non-Wikimedia sources, so that in the mid-term (2 to 3 years), I expect 50% to 75% of our budget coming from Wikimedia-sources, and that amount will than be spent within Community Support and Software Development. All other initiatives, even the successful and high-impact ones, will have to be financed through non-Wikimedia channels.

  1. Please share three more examples that you think best illustrate the kind of support WMDE provides community members.

1.) The German (Wikipedia)-Community is organized in many small entities, often related to a discipline (biology, history, film and television, ...) or activity (photographers, admins, arbitration committee…). Wikimedia Deutschland supports meetups of these entities as their meetings qualify participants and help coordinating activities in their field. In Q1-Q3 2013 Wikimedia Deutschland supported 14 such meetups (2012: 10, 2011: 5).

Related: since 2013 Wikimedia Deutschland provides an insurance to participants of small regional meetups to make photos. This easy and cheap, though effective measure allows the organisation of events through volunteers without becoming liable to participants.

Related: Wikimedia Deutschland took over the organisational duties of the WikiCon. The WikiCon is the annual conference of the German Wikimedia-community, the second largest regular community-meetup worldwide (~200-250 participants). It is run by volunteers only. This year it got in organisational trouble, WMDE offered help, it will take place now in late November 2013.

2.) With photo equipment, travel and accomodation grants and access to the “Community Space” in the WMDE headquarter 9 grantees photographed at the the election evening in Berlin, Germany in 2013. More than 500 photographs document the evening throughout all important German political parties and locations in Berlin. Similar photo events are one of the most common support activity of WMDE these days, in the fourth quarter 2013 WMDE assisted in approx. 13 such projects.

3.) Since many years the German Wikipedia community insists on a right to be strongly involved if changes would affect “their” home-wiki. Whenever this fails to appear, the community rises against the originator. This often caused hard times to the Wikimedia Foundation which hadn’t the necessary founding and knowledge in/about the German community (i.e. image filter). By means of moderation Wikimedia Deutschland was able to provide a much better understanding between all parties in various cases in 2013 (e.g. Article Feedback Tool-pilot, VisualEditor introduction).

  1. How are you planning to measure the outcomes or impact of your Volunteer Support Program on Wikimedia projects?

Questions about your metrics and evaluation strategy[edit]

For each program, please answer the question, “How will your entity document, track, and measure successes and challenges of this program?” It is fine to copy and paste the indicators from your detailed Theory of Change models here. We appreciate that you linked to those detailed documents, but we also need a record of these indicators as part of this proposal.

  • Program 1 / Volunteer Support Program:
  • Type, quantity and quality of the free knowledge.
  • The duration of volunteers’ involvement in the Wikimedia movement.
  • Motivation to contribute free knowledge following the completion of the supported project.
  • Success stories relating to projects that have contributed to creating an improved framework have been documented and made freely available in Wikimedia projects.
  • The number of volunteers who have begun to implement their projects.
  • The number of volunteers whose requests for support has been approved.
  • Volunteers give positive feedback on communications (e.g. assistance with procedures, feedback, review, support, funding).
  • Number of applicants.
  • Number of applications.
  • Number of requests.
  • Type and scope of requests about support opportunities and the support procedure.
  • Number of initial contacts.
  • Number of hits on the web pages presenting the volunteer support programs available to volunteers.
  • Requests for individual support.
  • Number of participants on supported projects.
  • Program 2 / Institutional Partnerships Program:
  • Type, quantity and quality of the free knowledge that has been contributed.
  • The degree to which this corresponds to the identified gaps within the Wikimedia movement.
  • Success stories relating to the modification of internal rules by institutions have been documented.
  • Number of institutions and type of declarations (e.g. agreements, press releases, statements of intent, framework agreements, pilot projects, contracts, etc.).
  • Joint agreements contain clear specifications on the type and scope of free knowledge that is to be made available.
  • Number of hours of events and consultations.
  • Institutions that have received consultation understand the concept of free licenses, including their risks (e.g. loss of control).
  • Institutions that have received consultation understand the advantages of free knowledge for the public and for themselves.
  • Institutions that have received consultation understand which models of free knowledge have worked for institutions with similar structures.
  • Institutions that have received consultation intend to contribute to free knowledge.
  • Having identified the required changes, institutions request guidance from Wikimedia Deutschland. (In this context, required changes are: making adaptations to the way in which knowledge is created, collected and disseminated inhe digital community.)
  • Program 3 / Legal and Social Framework:
  • Monitoring of the most important conditions in the areas of copyright, culture, education, economy and science that concern the creation, collection and dissemination of free content.
  • Monitoring of the most important legislative acts, institutional policies and specialist recommendations that concern the creation, collection and dissemination of free content.
  • The frequency with which decision-makers and representatives of influential institutions use the Wikimedia movement’s arguments in their publications.
  • The frequency with which experts include/cite from Wikimedia movement products.
  • Enquiries about key issues from decision-makers and representatives of influential institutions (e.g. statements, consultations or professional discussions).
  • Enquiries about key issues from decision-makers and representatives of influential institutions (e.g. statements, consultations or technical discussions).
  • Number and influence of the Wikimedia movement’s allies.
  • Scope of cooperation with the allies (amount of contact and communication density).
  • Areas of mutual agreement and disagreement have been identified.
  • Scope of our cooperation in the allies’ operational and tactical projects.
  • Number of joint products.
  • The number and quality of joint statements.
  • The time taken to publish a joint statement from the date it is requested.
  • Specialist knowledge within the Wikimedia movement.
  • Method-based skills within the Wikimedia movement.
  • Number of activists in the Wikimedia movement.
  • The Wikimedia movement has open access to regulatory problems.

These indicators are continually revised and focussed in line with recognized standards. For more information please see the change models of our programs.

Finally, how do you involve your community members in your monitoring and evaluation systems? How do you ensure that you are able to correct course regularly, as needed?

Following the best practice of the WMF Program Evaluation and Design team, our approach to involve our community members in our monitoring and evaluation systems is one of Appreciative Inquiry. This means that we will not evaluate community projects ourselves but instead facilitate self-evaluation. To enable transparency and participation our monitoring and evaluation system and its results are made public on our Evaluation portal.


Looking at the list of proposals that are to be reviewed by the community, it is obvious that the German proposal stands out by the amount of money that is asked for. It is fair to compare Germany with the United Kingdom. These countries are similar in number of citizens and development. The United Kingdom asks for 11.20 USD per 1000 citizens, Germany asks for 30.29 USD per 1000 citizens. Therefore, the German proposal is despicable.

I review the programmes of Wikimedia Deutschland as follows.

  • I do not consider the Volunteer Support Program to be necessary. I also think that it betrays many people who have donated to the Wikimedia Foundation for the reasons that were presented to them.
  • I do not consider the Institutional Partnerships Program to be feasible. Institutions will not contribute to the Wikimedia projects for free.
  • I consider the Legal and Social Framework Program as completely unnecessary.
  • I consider it just that Wikimedia Deutschland participates in software development. However, Wikimedia Deutschland should not become a software development centre for the Wikimedia Foundation. Software development should be an international activity, with all countries given a fair share.
  • I consider Wikidata to be of little significance.

Wikimedia Deutschland has 37.395 jobs and the staff expenses are 2,200,000 EUR per year. This means an average salary of 58,831 EUR per year. What a feast. Two employees deal with communication full time. Well, it shows. The English in the document is definitely not at a professional level, and the style of the programmes' specifications (in the tables) is not even at an amateur level.

Wikimedia Deutschland received 1,500,000 EUR for its Wikidata project from four organisations in 2012. In 2013, it received another 765,000 EUR from these organisations. Now Wikimedia Deutschland turns to the Funds Dissemination Committee for more big money. Wikidata consists of data that is easily readable for both man and machine. In the Unix operating system this concept has proven to be useful only for configuration files. It seems to me that Wikidata is of little use similarly. I consider the centralization of language links from Wikipedia and Wikivoyage of little significance. This is because peoples are familiar with only a few foreign languages. I consider the number of 3,900 editors of Wikidata to be insignificant when compared to the number of editors of the Wikipedia.

I review the contribution of Erik Möller on this Talk page as follows.

  • I consider the example of the Franco-Prussian war to be very poor.
  • When Wikidata 'unlocks' new data types, new applications do not "become possible". They already are.
  • The tagging of media files to make them belong to multilingual categories does not make sense to me. English is the international language; it suffices.
  • Software engineering is not a "key function" in general. It does not unlock the use and development of the existing projects.
  • Writing that the Wikidata project is "generating tons of insights for the movement as a whole" is ridiculous.

In conclusion, the German proposal is despicable and ill-advised. I advise the Funds Dissemination Committee to harmonize the funding of Wikimedia Deutschland with the proposal of the British, with regard to the numbers of citizens. This results in an amount of 898,348 USD. My advise presupposes that the British proposal is reasonable.

Maarten 1963 (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Maarten, thank you for spending time for a review.
It is fair to compare Germany with the United Kingdom.
No, not fair. You suggest to keep all chapters on the same level compared to number of citizens and development. Why not lift up UK to the level of Germany?
I do not consider the Volunteer Support Program to be necessary. I also think that it betrays many people who have donated
We ask the German donors for their reason to spend for Wikimedia. They are ok with volunteer support
I do not consider the Institutional Partnerships Program to be feasible. Institutions will not contribute to the Wikimedia projects for free.
They do. Like NASA in the US institutions in Germany like the University and State Library Saxony spent thousands of media files to Wikimedia Commons.
I consider the Legal and Social Framework Program as completely unnecessary.
Please provide reasons for your consideration
Wikimedia Deutschland should not become a software development centre for the Wikimedia Foundation (…) Software development should be an international activity, with all countries given a fair share.**
If you want a fair share to all countries, why do you deny software development in Germany?
I consider Wikidata to be of little significance.
I guess you considered Wikipedia in 2002 of little significance? Please let the Wikidata people do their project.
This means an average salary of 58,831 EUR per year. What a feast.
No feast. This is low salary for Germany.
The English in the document is definitely not at a professional level
You mean only native speakers or at least speakers on a professional level should be allowed to take part in the Wikimedia Movement? I don't agree.
--Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What? 58,831 EUR Low salary? According to this article the average salary is around 41;000 EUR per year in Germany, Mister. --Odeesi (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]