Grants talk:APG/Proposals/2013-2014 round1/Wikimedia Nederland/Impact report form

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

Report received[edit]

Thank you, colleagues at WMNL, for submitting this report! We're looking forward to reviewing this final version and learning much more about the impact of your work this past year. KLove (WMF) (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Feedback from FDC staff[edit]

The FDC staff (Katy and Winifred) shared their thoughts and feedback and asked questions about both the 2013-14 Impact Reports and the 2014-15 Progress Reports over a Skype call / Hangout held with the organizations. What follows is the summary of the conversation covering these two reports.


  • WMNL has submitted excellent impact and progress reports, which are indicators of this organization’s effectiveness. WMNL has a consistent track record of reporting against its progress in an organized and consistent way, year over year, (e.g. through use of tables and progress bars), and consistent financial reporting. This consistency continues to be important to understanding the organization’s progress. Yet, these high quality reports also include engaging storytelling, including videos, images, and quotes from partners and volunteers, as well as high quality learning. This new capacity for effective storytelling has taken WMNL’s reports to the next level!
  • WMNL has an impressively focused approach, which includes running a few quality programs and deepening these programs over time. WMNL’s programs are well-organized and program activities are connected by well-articulated common objectives. We encourage this increasingly focused approach as WMNL moves forward in its work.
  • Over the past several years, WMNL has established and grown partnerships with relevant and prestigious organizations and institutions in the Netherlands, and is continuing to leverage its strong ability to secure content donations. Thematic approaches continue to be an interesting way to engage participants, deepen partnerships, and create content.
  • Residencies established through WMNL’s Wikipedian-in-Residence program are now being sustained by local institutions, which demonstrates a significant success. We encourage WMNL to track the results of these self-sustaining partnerships, which it had a role in establishing. This type of self-sustaining approach with support from local organizations may be an effective way to scale this type of program.
  • We were pleased to see WMNL growing its focus on diversity this year, by increasing the number of female board members and continuing its exploration of a global south strategy to work with organizations in the Netherlands with content from the global south. We hope this important issue is discussed as part of WMNL’s ongoing strategy process.
  • We enjoyed reading more about the results of WMNL’s survey and its explorations in the area of community health. While WMNL may face some big challenges in terms of increasing participation, including a tense editing environment on Dutch Wikipedia, we see that the organization is approaching this issue in a thoughtful way.


  • Overall, we are concerned that the outcomes WMNL is achieving are too low with respect to the amount of WMNL’s Annual Plan Grant. We see a high focus on participation.
    • Community support is cost-intensive, and the outcomes achieved are relatively low. WMNL has not yet had success in increasing participation, despite this focus.
    • The organization has had success in securing content donations, but very few articles are being created or improved through its work.
    • Awareness-raising may not be a high impact area, and we have not seen impressive results. This type of activity may need to be reframed if it is continued.