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

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

Shorter overview[edit]

@SRientjes:, can you please add a short overview, one or two sentences, for the purposes of community review. The overview provided in the proposal is too detailed to use. You can just add it here on the talk page and I'll move it over to the template that goes on top of your proposal form. Thanks, Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 20:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Woliff:, I hope this short text fits the bill:
In 2016, Wikimedia Nederland will continue its GLAM partnerships with major institutions from the Dutch cultural and heritage sector and will put its education programme on a more independent footing by mobilising external funding and developing toolkits. Support to the Wikimedia community remains a priority; following a survey among the editors of NL-Wikipedia there will be special emphasis on promoting community health, including training in conflict resolution and online communication skills.

Sandra Rientjes - Wikimedia Nederland (talk) 08:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandra. This works perfectly. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 18:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Strategic plan[edit]

@SRientjes:, Would you please check the link to the strategic plan 2013-2015 provided here? It's not working for me. Thanks! Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 04:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Woliff: Apologies for that. One | too many. It should now work. Sandra Rientjes - Wikimedia Nederland (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Thanks for your plan that clearly shows that you have thourough experience running these type of activities. I am specially impressed by the matrix you have included, showing you have a good insight in what "really works". I like your "measurable results" and the programs for community support and Glam. Quality of wmnl and communication looks about OK, but I feel your are streching your programs a bit (too) broadly. For education I would have expected some type of consolidation in this are, as it a "mature" acitivty area, and even if giving value, generally not being seen as an area whith high impact related to resources put into it. So I wonder why you have not cosooidated your program better, both in limiting number of programs but also looking into the possibilty to decrease resources in areas like Education. And I do not find rationale in your resusested increase of funding.Anders Wennersten (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Anders. Thank you for your kind words - and for taking the time to read our application. Concerning the education programme, we in fact only started our first activities in education this year so I am not sure whether the programme can already be called 'mature'. In 2016 we want to put effort in finding external funding for the education programme. This would mean that it would no longer be dependent on resources raised through the APG-process or on the efforts of WMNL-office staff.
As to the increase of funding, we are requesting the same amount we requested last year (€340,000). We expect to draw on our reserves to compensate a deficit in 2015. Accessing our reserves was in fact suggested by the FDC when they set the grant at €304,000. Sandra Rientjes - Wikimedia Nederland (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks för you answers, they clarify well the issues I brought up.Anders Wennersten (talk) 05:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

questions from FDC staff[edit]

Thank you, colleagues and friends, for submitting this proposal. The FDC staff has reviewed it in detail. We have some questions for you. Please let me know if any of them is unclear, and I'll be happy to explain. Again, many thanks! KLove (WMF) (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Program questions[edit]

  • Do you have more specific targets for slowing editor decline as a result of your programs? Would you offer us some baselines to better understand this target?
The table below shows editor numbers on NL Wikipedia over the past four years. Although the total number of registered editors has increased, there is a notable decline in active and very active editors, and in new editors registring. Our goal would be to stop the decline especially among active and very active editors over the next two years; this could be done by supporting those already (very) active and enabling them to continue but also by motivating other editors to become more active.
oct-15 dec-14 dec-13 dec-12
Total number registered editors 32,435 30,908 28,859 26,501
Active editors 1,095 1,217 1,269 1,395
Very active editors 203 208 245 251
New editors registered over the year 1,495 2,104 2,572 2,795


  • Do you have any data to support the theory that organizing and investing in face-to-face events increases motivation and retention?
We have no hard quantative data to support this theory (and have already marked it down as a question to be included when we do our next survey of the editing community in 2017). We base the assumption on conversations with active editors, who frequently point out that in their experience it is very rare for editors who have met 'in real life' to end up in acrimonious conflicts. The suggestion to organise and faciliate face-to-face events as a way to reduce the level of conflicts was also put forward by respondents to this years survey.


  • Your desired outcome for the education programme is to ensure that universities and colleges are aware of the possibilities to integrate Wikipedia in their curricula. Given the small number of teachers and instructors involved, how do you plan to scale that approach to reach more?
We plan to raise funds from non-WMF sources which would allow a (full time or part time) education programme coordinator to be hired. We think that the only way to scale the education programme and make it sustainable in the long run is to make it more or less independent. Within the core staff-team of WMNL we have 1 fte available for project coordination, which covers all our GLAM work, suppport to Wikipedians in Residence as well as all the activities with knowledge institutes. Within those limitations, we will not be able to take the educationprogramme to the next level.


  • How do you see your planned activities in 2016 on social media advancing the movement’s mission?
Drawing people's attention to the work we do is a first essential step to getting them involved. We use social media as an element in the spectrum of tools to reach out to (potential) GLAM partners, individuals interested in taking part in activities - and also to the Wikimedia community (a substantial section of editors does not use the Village Pump or mailinglists). We have found this year that social media is also an effective tool in getting the attention of politicians and the media: we used social media to draw attention to a possible change in EU copyright law).

Sandra Rientjes - Wikimedia Nederland (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Budget and financial questions[edit]

*In our proposal analysis, we won’t include communications as a program as we consider these operational expenses.

In our answer above, we explain how we feel it is a key element of our programmatic work.

*What work are you contracting out for the communications program, the community program, and administration?

  • Communications program: website hosting and maintenance, design of the annual report and brochures.
  • Community program: developing and running training modules in online communication and conflict resolution.
  • Administration: annual audit, license fees online accounting system, advice on fundraising.

*What do the large budgeted amounts for purchases and acquisitions for community and content include?

  • Communications programme - costs of community events such as celebrating 15 years of Wikipedia, Wikimedia Nederland Conference, New Years Reception and WikiCafé's. This would include venue, catering, materials and give-aways.
  • Content - operational costs of all programmatic activities, such as venues, catering, developing materials, goodies. Also costs of participation in international events such Wikimania and Berlin Wikimedia Conference
  • How much are you spending on 1) printing; 2) merchandise; 3) travel for staff and volunteers. It’s not yet clear from the budget which categories include these types of expenses.
  • Printing: we have budgetted €6000 for printing. This is mainly to cover the costs of reprinting our Wikipedia and Wikimedia leaflets, and our brochure on GLAM partnerships. We no longer print our annual report.
  • Merchandise: we take merchandise to mean 'goodies' to give away at events. These are included in the budget of community events and major projects such as Wiki Loves. The total sum is approximately €5000.
  • Travel for staff and volunteers: €10,000 for in-country travel and accomodation volunteers, €10,000 for international scholarships for volunteers, €10,000 for attendance Board and staff in international events.


Questions from FDC members[edit]

One of the points raised by the FDC in the previous round was regarding "the very large reserves Wikimedia Nederland has at this moment, equal to nearly a full year of staff costs, which does not seem justified in their context." The comments then requested that "...the chapter to reduce these large reserves in the near future, decreasing the amount requested to the FDC in future proposals."
I was not personally on the FDC when that recommendation was written, but perhaps you could respond to this request from last year's FDC, given that the amount being requested now is the same that you requested then (€340.000)? Wittylama (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your questions, Wittylama. Our current reserve stands at €200.940. By the end of this year (2015) we expect it to be €164,940 so we are already following the FDC's suggestion to reduce the reserve. However, in the Netherlands it is considered good practice for non-profits to maintain an operational reserve. In general, 50% of the annual working costs is recommended but according to national guidelines the reserve should never exceed 1.5 times the annual working costs of the organisation. (Working costs are the costs of staff, housing, office and administration, fundraising and governance. More information can be found here). With annual operational costs of € 280,000 a reserve of € 164,940 is not excessive in our opinion. This was in fact confirmed by Garfield Byrd during a recent site visit. Sandra Rientjes - Wikimedia Nederland (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • In the Communication programme you are targeting a metric of "individuals involved: 500 - 2,000,000". This is a very broad range! In the communication section of the 2014-15 progress report you have a similarly broad range (between 3000 and 800.000 people) explained because of the difference between direct communication and mass-media communication. Is the range in this year's proposal for a similar reason, that you're trying to report two different kinds of metrics in the one place? Wittylama (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
It is a good question whether the global metric 'number of people involved can actually be applied to people targetted in communication activities at all. The broad range is indeed the difference between direct communication and mass communication. (And I think we may have missed out one 0: it should be 5000 - 2,000,000 - apologies!.) Sandra Rientjes - Wikimedia Nederland (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • In the Education programme, one of the measurable results is "...funding ensured to cover costs of mature education programme through to 2018" and in the GLAM programme, one of the measurable results is "...at least two external grantmaking organisations make available funds for GLAM-Wiki work". In the revenues section you are expecting to receive €80,000 in "local project funding/subsidies".
Are these things linked? As in, is the 80,000 that you hope to raise externally referring to the amount you are planning to use for the Education and/or GLAM programmes, or are they different things? If they're different - where do you hope to raise the money for those programmes, and what is this 80,000 referring to? [I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding your budget!] Wittylama (talk)
I am sorry that our budget leads to misunderstanding! In our plans for 2016 we have indicated some activities which will only happen if additional external funding is found. This applies to the upscaling of the education programme, but also to generating funding for a small-GLAM programme and research into the quality of NL-Wikipedia. It is possible that the funds we (help) raise for these activities will not end up in the WMNL bankaccount. Wikipedians in Residence programmes, for example, are hosted by partner institutions and funded out of their budgets although WMNL is usually involved in the fundraising/ proposal writing. This could also apply to the education programme. Therefore we have not included those funds as revenue for WMNL under local project funding/subsidies. The €80,000 mentioned there is the amount we need to raise in order to deliver the measurable results for 2016 specified in our application. Sandra Rientjes - Wikimedia Nederland (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Sandra, very helpful - and fast! Wittylama (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)