Grants talk:APG/Proposals/2013-2014 round1/Wikimedia Sverige/Proposal form

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

How does your entity share its work with your community and with the wider Wikimedia movement? For instance, publishing case studies on Meta, blog posts, newsletters, speeches at conferences, etc.[edit]

Här skulle vi väl även kunna nämna att vi har ett aktivt deltagande på wikifikor och även hjälper till att anordna sådana? Där diskuterar vi ju bland annat vad som sker på kansliet med våra mest aktiva volontärer.

Sedan så var jag även med och ledde en grupp under workshopen "Future of Wiki Loves Monuments" på Wikimania. Det var ju ett aktivt försök att komma ut med mer info om WLPA så det kanske kan vara värt att nämna. Om jag minns rätt så höll väl Axel också i en workshop? John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sen måste jag ju säga att du verkligen har gjort ett bra jobb här, Jan! Texten känns välformulerad och rätt imponerande :-). John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Prioritization of previous year programs on overall impact[edit]

I would like to see analysis of the previous year programs in terms of their overall impact and their ranking on various parameters, Outreach/Spend, Edits/Contributions/Spend etc. Have you considered such analysis in prioritizing the proposed year programs?--Arjunaraoc (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we have taken such thinking in consideration making our program plan. Most of that are based of figures you can find in our previous annual, quarterly and monthly reports and our online accounting. Obviously this years annual report is not done yet but thanks to the quarterly reports, acticvities from this year have also been taken into consideration. Ainali (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I reviewed the references you provided. My question is more about further analysis of outcome vs spend in each category like attracting editors, attracting media contributors and then deciding on fund allocation for specific programs. This may not be easy, but wanted to know the though process and any early assessments--Arjunaraoc (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, we tried to look at these questions while preparing our goals for next year. In fact, we had several full day meetings and workshops with members and the board, and there we mainly focused on an analysis of what we did and how it went in terms of effort and outcome on a qualitative level. To quantify these things is obviously often pretty hard. But even if we can do it: What does it tell us? Comparing just two projects, technology pool and reference literature, where we have some good metrics. We know we spend x$ on the pool this year and get y good photos per month, making z photos per $. For reference literature we spend a$ and get b improved articles, i.e. c$ per article. What does it tell us, which one is more efficient or effective? And how to consider that some projects are 75 (Wiki Skills), 80 (Europeana Awareness) or in the case of reference literature 100% externally funded?
Instead of trying to quantify these things we tried to analyze how effective an activity/project/goal helps to work towards our vision and strategy, what it will cost relative to /other/ goals, and how we consider the possibilities for external funding. We then came to an kind of extended version of wmse:Ledningsrapport_2013 on paper with prioritization and designed measurable goals on them based on previous experience.
I don't know if I answered your question, but maybe you have a good example from another chapter of what you are looking for? --Prolineserver (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. As I mentioned, the comparison can only be done between projects addressing the same topic. If you have two programs addressing the image contributions, you can compare them. If you have two or more programs addressing the Edits, you can compare them as a separate category. As you seem to be utilizing tools to track contributions, I wanted to understand whether you had done any quantitative analysis. BTW, thanks for your wmse:Ledningsrapport_2013. I felt good to see it even though I could not make out much as I do not know the language, as it has visual buttons. I am satisfied with your response.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

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! KLove (WMF) (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

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. The amount of 2,350,000 Swedish Krona you list in Table 2 matches our records.
  2. Your total budget in 2013 listed in Table 3 is 4,700,000 Swedish Krona and that your total proposed budget for 2014 listed in Table 2 is 5,201,500 Swedish Krona. Therefore, we calculate a proposed growth rate in your total budget of 11%. Please confirm that this matches your records.
  3. Your movement resources in 2013 are 2,350,000 Swedish Krona, and your request for 2014 listed in Table 2 is 2,800,000 Swedish Krona. Therefore, we calculate a proposed growth rate in movement resources of 20%. Please confirm that this matches your records.
  1. Confirmed.
  2. Confirmed.
  3. I get the growth to (2,800,000-2.350,000)/2,350,000 ≈ 0.19149 so I would round it to 19%.
--Jan Ainali (WMSE) (talk) 07:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Great, thanks, Jan! KLove (WMF) (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

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 used forex.se to get an exchange rate. Jan Ainali (WMSE) (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

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.
  2. 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?
  3. Who on your staff is responsible for your organization’s fundraising activities in 2014?
  1. We have one Chief Executive Officer who is responsible for all staff. The new staff is not expected to add much overhead. All salary routines, taxes and pensions are already in place.
  2. Yes. We expect it to help us interact more with volunteers. Also we are hopefull that volunteers will think it be more fun to help the organization when a lot of the administrative work is handled by staff. The roles of volunteers might shift a little bit in that it will be easier for them to engage for shorter periods and that they are not required tie themselves up in completing big projects. We made our planning on-wiki and also invited our members to an open meeting. During the planning process it was obvious there were a broad support to grow, which the board later took the decision to do.
  3. The Chief Executive Officer is responsible, staff members expertise are consulted in all fundraising especially grant applications. In 2014, the board will focus on plans for long term funding.
--Jan Ainali (WMSE) (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

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).
  2. 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?
  3. 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?
  1. As replied above, we are below the recommendation of 20% growth. As to the part of underspending, I believe we have replied earlier, yes we are underspending in comparison to the budget, but we are also not getting funds in the rate we had expected so we actually restrain ourselves from spending more money than we have got, keeping us in balance like any sound organization would do.
  2. We like the enwp first sentence in the article en:Partnership: "A partnership is an arrangement in which parties agree to cooperate to advance their mutual interests." We do not have a documented process, however we do have some experience from forming them, and also some written partnership agreements that we can use as templates. The commitments vary depending on the type of partnership.
  3. As stated in our detailed budget, our Minigrants and Community driven projects adds up to 65,000 SEK. For both these, an application is made and for the minigrant one baord member judges if the specified outcomes is in alignment with the mission and for the Community driven projects there is a commitee consisting of one board member and community members who does the same. This is our first year with minigrants so more evaluation is needed but our general feeling is that it keeps contributors motivated to do high quality work in areas that otherwise might have been missed.
--Jan Ainali (WMSE) (talk) 09:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

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?
  3. 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?
  4. Have you budgeted any funds for your operating reserves in this proposal (your proposal for 2014) and if so, how much?
  1. For operating reserves there are two boundary conditions: A lower one recommended by our auditors, KPMG, of at least 3 months of our costs (25% of the budget), and a upper legal one for non-profit charity organizations in Sweden needing to spend about 80% of the income over 5 years. As we are well below the recommendation, our first goal is to have the equivalent of 3 months spending in our reserves.
  2. As of 31 December 2012, our unrestricted operating reserves were 332 063 SEK (which means well below 10%), and around 30 000 SEK higher by 30 June 2013. Then there are 150 941 SEK left from the 2012 grant (corresponding to less than 7% of our costs 2012) for us to keep as reserves, too. However, after discussion with KPMG, these funds are not considered as reserves but liabilities as they come with several restrictions.
  3. No. We are planning to use up all FDC funds by the end of the year. However, as any losses would need to be balanced by our reserves (as there is no way to increase our FDC allocation in this case) we have to stay on the safe side and will most likely go with a small plus. The exact amount will be known by the end of February. If possible, it would be wise to add this amount to the (restricted) reserves.
  4. No.
Jan Ainali (WMSE) (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Questions about WMSE’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! KLove (WMF) (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarifications needed about your staffing plan[edit]

We had some questions about the information on your proposed growth in staffing. We understand that you are consolidating some positions, eliminating others, and changing the time allocation for others, while at the same time adding some new positions.

  1. Please edit the proposal form in order to complete Table 7, which we need all entities to complete so we can understand staff expenses across all entities. Note that if you expect a decrease in the costs of your current staff for this year, you may mark a decrease in that row. If you like, you may provide additional information about this in the Notes section.
  2. Please also add the following information to the notes for Table 6:
  • List each new position for 2014 and the percent of time allocated:
  • List each changed position for 2014 and the percent of time allocated in 2014:
  • List each position from 2013 eliminated in 2014:
  1. One reason we left it blank is that we do not understand your definition of "current staff" and how it should be used. E.g. if we have one role working 50% right now and it decrease to 20%, is that an decrease in current staff expenses? Another example: if we have one role on 60% right now and it increase to 100%, is that an increase in current staff expenses or would you regard it as new staff expenses?
  2. Added.
--Jan Ainali (WMSE) (talk) 07:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jan, sorry that the table was confusing. We understand that you currently have a total of 5.35 full and part time staff, based on Table 5 (1+2+.6+.15+1+.1+.5). I appreciated that you filled out table 6 noting any consolidation and lack of new hiring or where you were increasing the percentage. I understood based on Table 6 that you are moving from 5.35 current full and part time staff to a total of 7.2 full and part time staff. Thanks again for your notes here. KLove (WMF) (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Questions about objectives and strategic priorities[edit]

  1. Please explain how helping “institutions getting Wikipedians in residence,” contributes to the objectives of Program 2 / Content Liberation?
  2. For Free knowledge in education, you list 4 out of 5 strategic priorities. If you needed to select one or two priorities that were most aligned, which would you select and why? We are asking this because your rationale for choosing these strategies is important to understanding the impact and feasibility of your plan. It also helps the FDC track progress against movement-wide goals.
  3. Please explain why the different activities and goals listed in your Community Support program are contained in the same program. Many of them appear to be aligned differently with the strategic priorities and have very different objectives.
  1. We believe that by having a Wikipedian in residence the knowledge gain for the institution is both greater and faster. This means that their attitude towards free licenses is getting better. The WiR is also a very good guide for the institution that wants to make their collections (or parts of them) available under free licenses. One example of this is the Swedish National Board of Heritage. In 2012 they had two Wikipedians in Residence and a few weeks ago when they published their new internal guidelines for digitization not only were the guidelines themselves under a CC license it also included this statement: "The default is to use a free license. Material that is covered by copyright shall be released under Creative Commons Attribution unless law or contracts state otherwise." We are in the acknoledgments and our publication Cultural treasures on the net is in the reference list something we think the WiRs really helped bringing along.
  2. Improve quality and Increase participation. Improve quality fulfills immediate needs and are of use for readers directly. Increase participation has effect in two parts; firstly we believe that by making more people come in contact with Wikipedia through the educational environment it will be less strange to be a Wikipedia contributor and we will both getting more occasional users, just because they know how to do it and find more people becoming very active users. Secondly, the teachers and the Wikipedia ambassadors that get trained will be multipliers in that they will engage others to contribute to Wikipedia and do it regularly and continuously.
  3. Yes, the activities are quite diverse, however we grouped them that way because the main objective for all of them are to support the community and this should help us in doing the activities with that central thought first and foremost, even if there can be different sub-goals in the activities.
--Jan Ainali (WMSE) (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Jan Ainali (WMSE), for your responses! KLove (WMF) (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Questions about programs[edit]

  1. A goal for Program 1 / Community Support is to “help at least 20 different community members getting access to resources they need to solve specific problems.” Please provide three examples of the types of specific problems you are referring to.
  2. What are the roles of staff and volunteers in the activities listed for Program 2 / Content Liberation?
  3. What are the roles of staff and volunteers in the activities listed for Program 3 / Reach and Readers?
  1. So some typical resources we have provided community members in the past is access to reference litterature, high quality cameras and video recorders and other equipment in our technology pool. In this goal we would also include getting access to restricted areas for photography and similar activities. New for this year is that we also want to give the community members access to the staff as a resource e.g. staff solving a technical problem the community is struggling with.
  2. For both this and next question I would like to highlight a routine we have established; all projects should have identified tasks suitable for volunteers before they start. That being said, we are not on that level of detail on activity planning yet. For content liberation, staff will mostly be used for activities that require physical meetings in day time with the GLAM institutions. For online activities we will try to engage as much volunteers as possible.
  3. In reach and readers, volunteers has a more central role. Almost all activities revolves around volunteers in one way or another.
Please let me know if this answered your questions. If you do like a breakdown for the role off staff and volunteers in each activity, it will take a little longer time to expand. --Ainali (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your answers here, Jan! KLove (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments obviously wanted[edit]

It seems that for some reason my comment regarding some money spent is most wanted, as notices asking me for it keep popping up. So since this is so needed I guess I should write a few words.

Checking with Alexa it seems that Wikipedia is very popular in Sweden:

http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/SE

If the people behind the request is not way out it seems that their proposal is very modest compared to how much Wikipedia is used in Sweden.

Same story is told by checking how many page views the Swedish version of Wikipedia has:

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ReportCardTopWikis.htm#lang_sv

So with a 5 minutes fact-checking this seems to be a easy case. What is not easy to understand is why I and millions of other viewers that use Wikipedia should have any opinion about this. Again, if the girls and guys at WMSE are not totally jerks, just give them the money, if they are, then tell them to come again next year. Or even better, give them what they want and tell them quite sternly that if they mess up there will be no next year. Seems a much better aproach than bothering millions that could not care less. Ulflarsen (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)