Grants talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016 round1/Wikimedia Österreich/Proposal form

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Comments and praise[edit]

Thanks for your proposal that for me indicates a competent and targetfocused organisation. I like you goals, targets and program and have only two comments:

  • While I give you full credit for a well thought through and prepresented plan, I still can not see the rationale for your requested increase of funding by 10%, specially considering your poor result in getting fundings from other sources. I believe that it is a challange to get fundings in Austria, but still only getting 20 KEUR (down from budgeted 50keur) I see as a problem, also that you for next year keep this lower lever of funds from other parties. Why did you lower this ambition compared with last year? (if you have kept 50 KEUR as target, no increase in funding from FDC would be needed).
First of all, I find the wording ("poor result") debatable, we did not raise lot of cash but received considerable in-kind donations, which do not exactly grow on trees either. To the question itself: Firstly, if you compare the number with our current grant you will see that we actually increased our targets in this regard: Last year we wanted to achieve 25.000 EUR total, 17.000 EUR in cash and 8.000 EUR in in-kind donations (see table 5). For the upcoming year we plan for 20.000 in cash PLUS 16.000 in in-kind donations. We will also aim at getting projects supported by public funding (i.e. research projects), grants that will not most probably not be handled by WMAT but partner organisations and hence won't show up in cash in our revenues. This is partly build-in our lower budgets on a programm level. Secondly, overall we also have more ambitious goals for all our programs in 2016. Thirdly, in order to perform better concering fundraising we need more staff resources. In order to get resources you have to be able to invest resources in first place. --CDG (WMAT staff) (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I like your community support progam I still wonder if you have fully looked into what other chapters are doing in this activity area. I am missing some acitivities that has been found to be very effective by other chapters

Anders Wennersten (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anders, there are few other affiliates that put so much time and effort (especially regarding our size and resources) into fostering exchange with other orgs in this regard, i.e. sharing our own experiences and learning from others. WMAT is a founding member of the international volunteer support network. We also have long-standing experience in collaborating in this reagard with our partners in the DACH region (the German-speaking countries Germany, Austria and Switzerland). Community support is highly dependent on the respective Wikimedia project, Wikipedia language version and other local and cultural conditions. What works well in one country or community, doesn't fly in another. As you don't give any specific examples of which activities you have in mind, we can't give you a more detailed answer to that question. --CDG (WMAT staff) (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WMCH states Conduct four separate Wikidata (Q1, Q3, Q4) and bot wrangling (Q4) trainings, involving 20 active users in total. WMSE states the effectiveness of a technology pool.Anders Wennersten (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WMAT has been having a tech pool since the very early days of the chapter's existence and it was constantly developed in collaboration with our community. The results regarding quality and quantity are more than satisfying. As this activity mainly contributes to free content you find the numbers and other details in the respective program. Concerning the Swiss activites: as far as I understand, it is a new activity for 2016 (no numbers or experiences that could show how much impact this produces yet) and is an answer to concrete demands that the Swiss community formulated. In Austria it is the other way round - Wikidata is no priority for our community yet and we have to raise awareness on how it relates to our activities and fight certain prejudices against the project in some parts of the community, i.e. we have to start on a completely different level. --CDG (WMAT staff) (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying of the tech pool, it sounds good. For the acitivites of WMCH it has run already in other chapters like WMSE, with very satifying results.Anders Wennersten (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

questions from FDC staff[edit]

Thank you, colleagues and friends at WMAT, for submitting this proposal. Can you kindly respond to some questions from the FDC staff? If any are unclear, ping me and I'll be happy to explain more. Many thanks! KLove (WMF) (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your responses, Claudia! Much appreciated. KLove (WMF) (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Program questions[edit]

  • Please tell us if WMAT has any plans to address diversity and gender, beyond the education program participants.
As always we consider this as a cross-cutting topic in our activities. A good example is our incubator budget, which this year proved to be a successful way to adress a new, more diverse group of potential contributors. The explainer video workshops as well as the Wikipedia for Peace camp had an above average ratio of female particiants and in case of the latter also a wide variety of cultural backgrounds, including minority languages such as Irish and Basque. --CDG (WMAT staff) (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You note WMAT’s plans to ramp up its EU advocacy work. We’re curious to know more about how you define “working relationships” with MoP and what long term outcome you’re hoping to achieve through those relationships.
Working relationships would mean that MoPs remember who we are and what we stand for. In more practical terms it means that the MoP or his/her office is willing to react to a future request by us (asking for information, meeting, positioning) and that he or she will ask us for expert advice on specific issues. In the long run we want to establish the EU advocacy group as an civil society expert network that the MoPs consult proactively on matters concerning Free Knowledge, particularly on copyright and net neutrality issues. --CDG (WMAT staff) (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Budget questions[edit]

We have a few questions about your budget.

  • What is included in the 10,000 Euro line item for international Wikimedia meetings?
With this budget we support the smaller Wikimedia projects - this year we hosted a meeting for the German-language Wiktionary, next year we would like to initiate something similar around Wikivoyage. It is also a budget for unforseen international Wikimedia meetings (this year there were two GLAM meetings/conferences that we did not know of when we planned our budget, same goes for the Wikisource Conference we are hosting ourselves this year), so that we can fund community members from Austria who want to contribute and/or attend. In addition, there are several international meetings for contributors from the German-speaking countries (e.g. we have two Austrian members in the German-language WP arbitration committee, which meets twice a year somewhere in Germany). We also want to intensify our relations and collaboration with the CEE region, and send WMAT representatives to the 2016 CEE conference in Armenia. --CDG (WMAT staff) (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is included in the 10,000 Euro line item for photo contests?
This includes Wiki Loves Earth, which usually costs around 7.000 EUR (including a contractor for technical infrastructure such as website, pre-jury tool etc.). The rest is for smaller contests such as some activites around the Monuments Day with our partner the Federal Monuments office (we want to keep up the partnership even without a traditional WLM in the next year) and possibly the international Science Photography contest - an inititative of WMEE - of which we learned in the context of this years CEE meeting. --CDG (WMAT staff) (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A short addition: The technical infrastructure we produce for our contests is shared with other countries if desired - this year for example our pre-jury tool was used by WLM Germany and Wikimedia Srpska, last year we shared the design of the WLE website with WLE Serbia. --CDG (WMAT staff) (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the addition here. KLove (WMF) (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also tested the jury tool and it's currently the easiest to set up (as well as quite pretty!), a good backup for all chapters and groups in case we don't have a committed "central provider". Nemo 22:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain the expenses for skills transfer, international relationships, and volunteer recruitment?
  • Skill transfer: This includes the WikiTuesdays and other smaller events (workshops) which aim at improving important volunteer skills (costs for room, extertnal expertise (trainer) when needed, wifi, catering, travel (as we will try to reach out to contributors outside of Vienna). It also includes the organization costs for and travel costs to the Guide Camps in which WMAT took on a leading role.
  • International relationships: This comprises translation of our learnings/experiences for the international community and vice versa (for information that could be relevant to have in German). It also comprises international collaboration e.g. with partners from the CEE region (supporting travel to our events for volunteers without APG chapters), i.e. for workshops aimed at diaspora editing.
  • Volunteer recruitment: We plan to have a booth at the Austrian volunteer fair 2016 (we did in 2014 and found it worthwhile). We also produce and/or order existing information material for volunteer recruitment (volunteer profiles, guides how to use free licenses etc.). And we build in some leeway for new ideas in this aera. --CDG (WMAT staff) (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the total you will spend on staff and volunteer travel?
Approximately 50.000 EUR. --CDG (WMAT staff) (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With thanks, KLove (WMF) (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from FDC members[edit]

  • In last year's FDC review comments it was said: "The FDC believes that the goals and targets set by Wikimedia Österreich may be too conservative and not ambitious enough; based on past performance, it seems likely that it will be relatively easy for the chapter to meet and surpass these targets." This appears to have been the case. For example, the targets for 'community decorated' articles and multimedia (which are described in the 'objectives' section of the Free Content programme) show that the amount received was twice to 6-times more than originally targeted.
Your targets for 2016 are either the same as, or modest increases on, the amounts achieved in 2016 (except in cases that were affected by Eurovision). Can you comment on the level of of your targets this year? Wittylama (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Wittylama - thanks for your feedback and thorough analysis of our proposal! We think that the budgets need to be considered in relation to each other: We request an increase in our budget of 8,8%, our targets compared to our last budget are severely higher (mostly between 50% and several hundred % more). We planned too conservatively last year, but the level to which we exceeded our own expectations this year did not come easy, we consider 2015 an outstandingly successful year, especially in terms of generated content. Even retaining this level will be a considerable effort (please compare the rationale we provided for the individual metrics). Nevertheless, we also built in some considerable growth in some areas (academic knowledge in Program 3, amount of partner organizations in Program 3, active editors in skill transfer activities in Program 1), where we think it will be feasible (instead of just adding some percentages overall because it might look better). Please also note, that for most programs we plan with an even leaner budget next year (aiming at getting support from other sources, downsizing mature projects such as WLM etc.), part of the additional funding is necessary for a slight increase in staff and to finally provide an adequate salary structure. For the past few years we planned with minimal wages and a maximum of passion and enthusiasm and would like to move to average wages and a maximum of passion and enthusiasm, to provide a sustainable professional perspective for a team that proved itself over the past years. We need to achieve this with WMF funding, as getting staff costs covered from other sources is very hard in Austria (please compare the numbers we provided concering third party funding/ charity below table 2). In a nutshell, we consider ourselves reaching a plateau in terms of budget and staff with this plan and believe it constitutes a reasonable input/output ratio. --CDG (WMAT staff) (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Free Content program talks primarily about photography (including the logic model diagram and the timeline graphic), but the targets also include a pair of items relating to articles - 10,000 improved and 20 'decorated' articles. It mentions that it is supported by "WMAT library/literature grants" and writing contests, and the budget allocates 3000 Euros to this (rows 33 and 35). But, can you explain what this is and how it has helped achieve the target from the current year, particularly the "literature grants" (which are also mentioned, but not described, in the 2015 progress report)? Wittylama (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We support writing contests with the donation of prizes and/or organizational support. An example for a regular writing contest focussing on quality is the Schreibwettbewerb; a regular writing contest focussing on quantity is the Wartungsbausteinwettbewerb.
We evaluate our library/literature grants once a year. That's why there aren't any figures in our progress report. There will be more information in our impact report. We have a permanent library of books and magazines in our office. Many of them are donations. Active editors can use this literature in our office (e.g. during a WikiTuesday) or they can borrow some literature from our library for a certain amount of time. We also use our books and magazines at other places e.g. for edit-a-thons such as the Jubilee Edit-a-thon and writing contests such as the Denkmal-Cup. Active editors can also propose the acquisition of new literature by WMAT (this is usually literature that is hard to come by through public sources or (standard) literature that is needed for a longer amount of time. This literature is a permanent loan to the editor. He or she is obligated to assist other editors that want information from this literature. When the editor doesn't need the book any more it can be integrated into our library. You can find the procedure and documentation of our library/literature grants here in German. --CDG (WMAT staff) (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation is in the row above (changes to the position of the Administrative Assistant), as the upgrade already came into effect in October 2015 (due to the Wikisource Conference) I decided to add it to the total. Sorry for the confusion. --CDG (WMAT staff) (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Österreich/Proposal_form&oldid=14353418"