Grants talk:PEG/WM FI/WMFI 2014

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

Evaluation by the GAC[edit]

comments by NLIGuy[edit]

Dear Tommikovala,

Thank you for submitting this interesting and well articulated proposal. I would like to get your input on several points.

  • While I agree with my colleagues below that the proposal is well thought, I am still somewhat troubled by measures of success pointed out during the proposal. I will provide a few examples, and I think you'll get what I mean:
    • Gaining more recognition in Finland and internationally - how is recognition measured? by press releases? chapter members?
    • Securing permanent funding that is well balanced with community activity - is a funded program's evaluation criteria to get more funding? I would like to see, as an outcome of this program, at least a document pertaining to the roadmap of growth for WMFI, just as if WMFI were funded by FDC. This is not a beurocratic request - on the contrary, I think that if you plan to grow and do it on a steady basis, you should at least provide a roadmap showing a draft of your strategic plan. It can't rely on grants only.
    • providing at least hundreds of maps and aerial images... so - is a 100 images/maps a success? maybe 500? What do you regard as a success?
  • Also, I feel that in general, if you like to ask for funding to operate a chapter, a part is missing which discusses the current chapter state and why it needs funding by GAC.
  • There is a mismatch between what you describe as your funding goal from GAC in the google doc (€ 56 713,60) and what is requested in the grant proposal - € 63 552,29. Could you elaborate?
  • Finally, it is apparent that most of the grant's budget will go to salaries - either projectal or, if I understand it correctly, to overload current WMFI employees. While the amounts are not that significant when compared to active chapters, I would still like to understand the current staffing situation, and would like you to also reference what happens after the project ends and you are supposedly shrinking back again in personnel - - How would you sustain the project's/chapter's activities started in the project?

Thank you in advance for your input, NLIGuy (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear NLIGuy,
Thank you very much for your input. Tommikovala and I will be collaboratively answering and perfecting the application during the day. Here are my first replies:
The mismatch between the budget in the application and the Google Doc
  • As a result of a request by the GAC, we have folded two applications into one. In the Google Doc there exists both the version for 2014 only and a new version with a combined budget for 2014 and 2013. The corresponding spreadsheet in Google Docs was on page 2. I have moved it to page 1. Sorry for the confusion. --Susannaanas (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, this indeed helps. NLIGuy (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • By the 2013 budget I meant the part of the application that goes into 2013 activities, while it does not represent the whole budget for 2013. For clarity's sake the WMFI 2013 budget is not included here but can be presented on request. --Susannaanas (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Staffing now, 2014 and beyond in WMFI
At the moment Susanna Ånäs has been compensated for her work for the amount of 120 hours as an employee of the association. She currently works on the Wikimaps project full-time for the duration of December. She has stepped down from the board at the beginning of the employment period.
From the beginning of the year for the duration of 6 months, she will be employed half-time for the Wikimaps project. She will also be at the disposal of the association. Depending on the outcome of this application, there can be an extension of a further 6-month period. That period can also be carried out by someone working only as a coordinator or CEO of the association, if so decided.
In the application there is an item for a 25% community coordinator/technical assistant for the duration of 12 months or equivalent contractors. We are likely to hire a person for that.
The task of the year is to involve the new board members in the long term development of the chapter and attract more people from the striving Open GLAM / Open data community in Finland. Following the Open Knowledge Festival in Finland in 2012, these vibrant communities have emerged. Lagging in financial support compared to the Nordic peers, the communities are starting to lose active members.
Our original plan was to have a joint space with the other actors of openness, and a CEO from the beginning of 2014. As the other actors have not yet been prepared for that, we have omitted the requirement for permanent space this year, but it will be in our plan for the next year. We are working towards having a CEO in 2014 or 2015, depending on the development of the association.
In our application for the Nordic Culture Fund we stated that we will work in an apprentice-like relation with the Swedish chapter, learning from their practices and working together with the Wikimaps Nordic project. We also now have such relation to the Norwegian chapter, who are establishing their activities with an office space and 3 employees with FDC funding. Last weekend Susanna Ånäs attended a Nordic meeting with Mattias Blomgren (chair, WMSE) and Erlend Bjørtvedt (vice chair, WMNO) planning future Nordic activities beyond Wikimaps Nordic. [1]
--Susannaanas (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Staffing between WMFI, Wikimaps and Wikimaps Nordic
  • Employee, Wikimaps, 1 month full-time December 2013, funding by PEG, Susanna Ånäs. At the disposal of WMFI
  • Employee, Wikimaps Nordic, 6 months half-time January-June 2014, funding by Nordic Culture Fund, Susanna Ånäs. At the disposal of WMFI
  • Employee, WMFI, 6 months half-time July-December 2014, funding by PEG, personality will be decided by the board during 2014 based on PEG resolution
  • Employee/contractors (likely employee), WMFI, 12 months 25%, January-December 2014, funding by PEG, personality not known. At the disposal of Wikimaps
  • Contractors, equivalent of 5 person months, Wikimaps developers, internationally, funding from Nordic Culture Fund, to be assigned by the creative communities and governed by the Wikimaps Nordic administrative group.
  • Employee/contractors, Wikimaps Nordic, equivalent of 1 month, locally in Sweden, Estonia, Denmark, funding by Nordic Culture Fund. To be assigned locally in Wikimedia chapters.
  • Wikimedia Norway was not included at the time of the proposals, and will therefore fund equivalent resources for the chapter itself.
--Susannaanas (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear NLIGuy,
Thank you for the thoughtful input. I hope Susanna's replies cleared up some points.
Perhaps "recognition" wasn't the right word to describe what we were going for, so it's good that you brought it up. Now it should reflect our goals and I hope nothing is lost in translation anymore.--Tommikovala (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+ 1 from Aegis[edit]

Hello, Dear Finns,

let me join the words of NLIGuy.

I must start with my sincere congratulations for a neatly described and interesting project with a broad scope. However, as this is a very broad project with several subprojects and 7+? contractors, I think it requires some further elaboration.

Firstly, the measures of success. As NLIGuy pointed out, the WMFI part is a rather generic wishlist which could be attached to any submission. I would find it very difficult to evaluate this part after 6/12 months (or rather it would be very easy - the recognition somehow grew, the quality somehow grew etc. - but we do not have any metric to really measure that). Therefore, I would like to come up with something specific - at least as a secondary goal (like the software functionalities implemented, number of participants active in the 12th month, number of maps uploaded, some dynamics ir sth else) to have something more tangible to evaluate. Please do mind that the goal doesn't need to be overly conservative (if you miss it we will not necessarily shoot you - it will just be a lesson to learn and improve); don't make it overly optimistic neither. :)

The Wikimaps Nordic part is surprisingly described in a bigger detail and I find the soft goals in the Budges items section quite satisfactory (although you might come up with some hard metric).

Second thing and very similar: I am not fully sure what are the responsibilities of the "Wikimaps project manager", as well as "WMFI" contractors after December 2013. Wikimaps project section describes a number of activities, however if I read this correctly, these are endavours of many people and Susanna Ånäs is attached to some of them. Some clarification would be welcome - maybe similar to the "project coordinator" description in this section. The same applies to the WMFI person in 2014.

To wrap it up, I find this submission pretty interesting, in line with our goals and benefitial. Part-time project managers for such endavours are in my experience a good way to go, especially as a continous and effective contact with institutions really cuts into our daily work time. It looks like a very good grant candidate, I just think these suggestions would be helpful both for you, WMF and your donators/members/stakeholders to steer/monitor/evaluate the project.

Best Regards,
aegis maelstrom δ 12:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Aegis Maelstrom,
Thank you for your attention for the project. I have answered the cluster of questions in other parts of the page, and I have almost finished revising the measures section.
However, there is still the question of confusion between WMFI and Wikimaps tasks. I will append an explanation of that in the section above, under staffing now, in 2014 and beyond as Staffing between WMFI, Wikimaps and Wikimaps Nordic --Susannaanas (talk) 08:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GAC Members who read the grant request without comments[edit]

GAC Members who approve this grant request[edit]

  1. If only all projects were like this ... I see an interesting project, support from WM Suomi + Sverige + Openstreetmap, different sources of funding (54% to be funded by the WMF). And a whole list of people that will be involved. Definitely a yes! MADe (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. --Ilario (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Polimerek (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Once compliance issues are resolved. Craig Franklin (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC).Reply[reply]

GAC Members who oppose this grant request[edit]

  1. Certainly not yet—far too many questions remain to be answered. Tony (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Later: I'm warming to it, but would like to explore opportunities for trimming back the budget and auditing the rather ambitious scope of activities, given the WMF's emphasis on gradual, controlled increases in activities and budgets, and its preference for evidence of a track-record of successful management of complex programs. Tony (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Still an oppose from me, given Asaf's post below. Tony (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC) Later still: Asaf has proposed two routes that both have merit. Tony (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GAC Members who abstain from voting/comment[edit]


In the IEG there is another project of Wikimaps. May you explain if there is an interaction, if it is a parallel project and so on? --Ilario (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The creators of the Wikimaps Atlas have been in close coordination with the Wikimaps project from the beginning. It was decided to run the projects in parallel, rather than to try to fit them organisationally into one.
Wikimaps (this project) deals first with setting up a workflow in bringing historical maps to Commons and allowing searching and using them as georectified maps in Wikipedia and elsewhere. In addition, the idea is to extract map data in collaboration with OpenStreetMap (OpenHistoricalMap) and link that to Wikidata.
Wikimaps Atlas (in IEG) is doing the ground work to start utilizing Wikimedia's and external map data for creating maps for Wikipedia. This is a first step into taking advantage of the data that is produced within Wikimedia and in collaboration with others.
Nevertheless, the idea is that all work contributes to a common whole. Projects develop individually while keeping in sync. --Susannaanas (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although I think Nordic Wikimaps & Wikimaps projects is very good idea - I'd like to see more specific measurement of success - at least minimal number of historic maps uploaded or number of really working orto map layers for specific countries/areas etc.. The budget part of application is also difficult to follow because there is a mix of project related expenditures and general cost of operation of WMFI. Would be better to clearly separate costs of specific projects with sub-totals for each and general operational costs. Polimerek (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would be happy to invite you to view the budget in the online spreadsheet that is much easier to read: --Susannaanas (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the submission. The programme plan appears to be convincing with very interesting and good ideas, but there are still some things that have to be explained better. So, my questions are the following:

  1. Can you describe the working positions of all the people who will get paid during the fiscal year?
    Project coordinator (Person A 6 months half-time or 6+6 months half-time, or person A 6 months half-time + person B 6 months half-time in Finland)
    Project coordinator prepares and hosts the events, is responsible for financing, reporting and follow-up. She coordinates the international developer community and the Nordic GLAM community. This is a paid half-time position for 6 months. The project coordinator is funded until June, and we expect to secure another grant for the latter half of the year. In case that would not succeed, the project would be either finalized as a volunteer project, or collaboratively with applicants. The profile of the coordinator in the latter half of the year can change to include more tasks relating directly to Wikimedia Suomi. Note: The division stems from the Nordic Culture Fund application that only includes the first half.
    GLAM technician / community coordinator (One person 12 months 10 hours/week or several contractors in Finland)
    A position in Wikimedia Suomi for one person or several short assignments. 12 months 25% time. Assisting GLAMs with content donations. Doing technical / coding work for GLAM projects. Doing community coordination. As we do not have an office, we would prefer contracting rather than employment. (Note: We are now leaning towards hiring as a means to reduce administrative overload. --Susannaanas (talk))
    Technical and design assignments (Several contractors equivalent of 5 person months full-time, international)
    Technical and design assignments are launched by the international developer community and the Nordic GLAM community in dialogue as short-term paid assignments, also possibly volunteer assignments. The equivalent of 5 person months salary to be coordinated collaboratively by the Wikimaps international community.
    Local assignments (One person 1 month full time or several contractors in Sweden, Denmark and Estonia)
    There is a budget item for compensating the staff or contracting an assistant in each of the cities for one month each. One month paid assignment per country except Finland.
  2. Can you explain how did you get to the amount of 600 euros for accounting expenses when you have a unit of 12 months with 150 euros per month totalling 1,800 euros? How did estimate the amount of 800 euros for the bookkeeping expenses? What does this cost include?
    We are in the process of hiring an accounting agency, and the amounts are therefore approximate. Why it is such an encrypted figure? The amount 800 for accounting and 350 for financial statements was applied for in the Nordic Culture Fund application for the Wikimaps project. For the annual plan application we had another estimate, and we decided to apply for the difference from GAC. The note is missing from this page, you would have found it behind the link to the online spreadsheet: "avg 2h/month. Amount, that is not included in Wikimaps project". But there is a discrepancy of 50€, and I would be happy to correct the whole budget item for accounting based on real tenders. --Susannaanas (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Can you give us more information about the ITK Conference? What is it about? Why do you think that the participation of Wikimedia Suomi will enrich it?
    Interactive Technology in Education (ITE) -conference is the largest conference in Finland related to information and communication technology in educational use. The conference started in 1990 and it will be carried out next spring for the 25th time.
    WMFI volunteers have submitted 2 proposals for the seminar, and it has been a strong wish of the community that WMFI will be present at the fair with a stand. The key motivation is to present to the educators the Wikimedia sister projects and help eliminate prejudices about using them. In the coming year WMFI will focus especially on education.
    You can read the whole community discussion at the Finnish Wikipedia page here --Susannaanas (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would also like to echo Polimerek's concern above on the measures of success, which really need to be defined with numerical figures in order to get a better insight on what will be considered success of these activities. All other things appear to be in place and it's very good to know that you can also provide funding from additional sources that will reduce the proportion of this grant to almost one-half of the total amount in your budget. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We shall revise the criteria. The network is of importance as well as collaboration. We hope to find suitable criteria for reflecting that especially. --Susannaanas (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have replaced the budget table with a new one including line items previously in the Wikimaps2013 submission, which can now be discontinued. I also added paragraphs for the activities included in Wikimaps2013. --Susannaanas (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tony1 queries[edit]

Hi, thanks for submitting this application. The map project looks interesting. $87,000 is quite a big bid.

(1) Application made after liabilities start? Do I understand that the activities for which funding is applied have already started? While it says: "Wikimedia Finland seeks funding for activities in 2014.", it then says: "The proposal also includes a one-month full-time working period in December 2013 for preparing the Wikimaps Nordic activities of 2014." This seems contradictory. I do have a problem with retrospective funding. I wonder why the application wasn't made in October.

For this I apologize. As we have folded two applications into one (Wikimaps retrospective and December funding for 2013, and the Wikimedia Suomi general budget for 2014), there seems to remain some incoherence. Working with a substantially larger budget than before has required a lot of orientation for the chapter. While we have not been able to provide the application in October, we have been able to adapt to the change. We have prepared to the change in activity level by broadening the member base for the 2014 board within the cultural sector in Finland. We have also enquired whether retrospective funding is allowed, at the Grants booth in Wikimania (and requested general guidance from the GAC). --Susannaanas (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(2) Measures of success. The instructions say: "Please provide a list of measurable criteria ...". Can you estimate what numbers you'd be pleased to achieve in all cases, or remove bullets where they are inappropriate? Estimates that turn out not to be achieved (or over-achieved) are fine, because they're part of the learning process (for you and for the movement); just your best guess as part of your planning process.

"Gaining more recognition in Finland and internationally"—not measurable, unless you want to come up with aspect(s) that are. I'd remove it.

"Securing permanent funding that is well balanced with community activity"—Do you mean you want to use this project to establish a track-record with which to subsequently apply for FDC money? If so, as a matter of psychological strategy I'd definitely avoid saying that in this forum; and it wouldn't affect the strength of your bid here anyway.

"Increase in membership, especially expert members"—very measurable (but give the current and what-you-hope-for numbers, please). Do you mean active members or those who just pay their annual membership but do nothing and insist on remaining anonymous (cf. Wikimedia Australia)? Could you add a ", such as" for the expertise you'd be pleased to gain?

"Increase in activities, especially in the field of education"—more brownie points for being more specific about "education"; "Increase in partner projects, especially in the GLAM sector"—more points for giving a few morsels about GLAM. Or perhaps we'll encounter this further down in the application.

The last bullet seems impossibly vague: "The figures will be recorded and compared against available earlier data."—I'd hope that many or most of the measures of success would be based on comparisons with earlier data, if it exists; this shouldn't be a stand-alone unanchored point. Back later for more. Tony (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tony1,
Thank you for your feedback. We hope to be able to clear any obscurities and provide better criteria for the committee to evaluate the proposal. I will add my comments inside your feedback. --Susannaanas (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Tony1 and thanks for commenting,
Susanna already elaborated on a few points based on what I've written elsewhere, I hope it cleared up some points.
Your comment on the membership part was especially important since it deals with a key goal we have for the next year. We definitely are not looking for anonymous passive due-payers but expert partners who will take part in organizing projects and events.
Looking at edit-a-thons and other events around the world, one of the key issues seems to be continuity. Getting people from partner institutions on board for the long haul will make these events worth the money and effort. Successfully setting up workshops and meetups in addition to bigger events is the best way to make sure the momentum doesn't go to waste. Editor retention and similar metrics are a tricky tool to evaluate events because they depend on the Wikipedia community to a great degree; some new users feel intimidated by the culture. We've recruited prolific editors from the community and some have even joined the board, so this is no longer something completely beyond our control.
A large part of the sum for GLAM & EDU is for travel expenses. I've found that one veteran Wikipedian per ten edit-a-thon attendees is nowhere near enough, so we made allowances for covering travel costs for experienced editors who want to participate. It also lets us work with institutions based far from the capital (where most board members live).--Tommikovala (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Susanna and Tommi, thanks for your responses here and your modifications of the application. "Measures of success" is now stronger—well done. However, I think the instructions should stress that "measures of success" are not "aims". So "Furthering the use of Wikidata. Cases reported. No exact promises." should be relocated and adapted as an aim, not a measure of success. And "strengthening collaboration between Nordic Wikimedia chapters. To be expressed as plans for common activities" might be retained as a measure of success if written as: "The development of written plans for strengthening collaboration between Nordic Wikimedia chapters, first drafts for onwiki community comment by [month, 2014]."

Maps project: Can you name at least some academic(s), their positions, and institutions, who are interested in advising or collaborating? That would make this claim stronger: "In addition, there will be academic research work affiliated with the project in the context of volunteered geographic information and crowdsourcing in Arts and Humanities."

I have not wanted to stress the academic aspect, because the research project is my personal endeavor, but is related very closely to the Wikimaps project. I will be conducting a short term scientific mission in the context of COST ENERGIC program. In January 2014 I will spend a week in University College of London, hosted by Prof. Muki Haklay, and a week in Oxford Internet Institute, hosted by Dr. Mark Graham. I will meet several scholars in both institutions. "Discussing with researchers in the two research institutions, I will study the methods used for evaluating how and why groups and individuals, or other stakeholders engage in crowdsourcing or VGI projects. Based on that and a literature study I will propose suitable methods to identify, evaluate and design patterns of engagement for VGI projects."
Background: "My study is about investigating and designing the creative space, where individuals or communities and memory organizations exchange cultural historical objects and further reuse them. The study looks at the motivations of the amateur historians or hobbyists who want to share and collaborate with others and benefit from the archives that are being opened at an increasing pace. On the other hand I look at the motivations of the memory institutions for opening and sharing their collections and expertise."
In the context of WMFI & Wikimaps, you will find several scholars:
In regard to historical gazetteers we have been exchanging ideas with the Pelagios 3 project (Dr. Leif Isaksen, University of Southampton, Elton Barker, Open University and Dr. Rainer Simon, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology) and their network.
--Susannaanas (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could we have some milestones? No one's going to flame you if you're late or adapt your plans, but a timetable of your reasonable expectations would be great. So "Status", "People", and "Expected timeline" for each. I really like your status and people points for each task; we should suggest this for all GAC applications that involve elaborate and expensive tasks.

I will work on that. --Susannaanas (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I retain my cynicism about the lasting value of edit-a-thons. And I wouldn't mind seeing the budget trimmed and tucked so it's more modest, given the lack of track-record. WMF grantmaking is keen to support modest increases in activities and budgets to maximise outcomes and gradual learning. Tony (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We acknowledge the fact that we expand our activities very rapidly. In order to make it possible, we are teaming up with the Swedish chapter in a learning process. The fact remains that the Wikimaps and Wikimaps Nordic projects are financially substantial, and the growth of WMFI is a fruitful side product. We will need to seek additional funding elsewhere, if WMF does not support us. That would steer our resources even more into funding, as we have only secured the half-time salary for the period of January to June. --Susannaanas (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Close ties with academics are likely to strengthen the WMF's projects (if they can become enduring ties). Collaboration with the Swedish chapter would be excellent, but would need planning. Any way the maps project could be done in two stages, with a review and further application down the track? Tony (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Wikimaps project is 76% funded, with a missing proportion of 15 080 €. In addition to that, the application covers expenses that have occurred during the year 2013 (6838,69 €), and WMFI chapter activities (41633,6 €) that would also benefit the Wikimaps project. --Susannaanas (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from FDC members[edit]

Anders Wennersten[edit]

Perspective from the svwp community

I myself am a very acive contributer to sv:wp and have identified the area of map information in our articles as an area with big potential for improvement, especially related to older adm areas, where historical maps are the key. I have just in October lead a workshop with the persons with best knowledge in this area from our community and chapter. And the fact is that even being the biggest communty in the Nordic countries we are still too few to be able to have a critical mass of tech knowledge for maps to enable us to run "project" by our own. So for me and the sv:wp community it is a perfect suggstion to run this as a project for all Nordic countries. Also being myself an expert on old adm units in Sweden, I know of the big resembelnce that exist between Sweden Fikland Norway and I think Denmark for these old adm units, Estonia I am not familiar with.

Perspective from me as FDC member
  • The size and setup of the project look very reasonable and no "warning signals" of the scope get raised when I read the proposal
  • The goals and results are already discussed by GAC members, and I have not elaborated on these when I have looked through the proposal
  • FDC wants in general to see more creative programs also including crosschapter cooperations. This is also stated in our last recommendation. I am very glad to here find an inititive that lives up to thes criterias and also being in an interesting bordreline between concrete community work, "expert" technical development and broad cooperation with acors in he Glam area.
  • To grow into a staffed chapter by project like this is in many ways a preferred way by FDC
My very personal perspecive

Besides being haevy involved in the sv:wp myslef (working ther 6-10 hours a day all year around) I follows/support all the technical related effort there, like Lsjbot, naskobot and how make best use of Wikidata. Personally I am all convinced that it it cruical for the future of Wikipediare that we will learn how to make best use of these technologies/tools for us to create more and better arrticles with higher quality even with less effort that we use today makin articles manually. I am therefor very keen on project where technical expertice, subject experts and communtiy members cooperate, as I think it is in this mix great new tools and methods will be developed. And even if some of he goals are a bit vague I fully support the project as it will be of great value to build competence and learn this type of important cooperation

In sum

I fully suppoort this intitive as it is presented and wish it all the best. I also personally plan to take part in meetings and work of impelementation.Anders Wennersten (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your support! --Susannaanas (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mike Peel[edit]

From my perspective, this plan/grant request looked broadly good to me. The only topics for concern that I can spot are that it's asking for funding for past expenditure from this year as well as future expenditure (I’m not sure if that’s OK or not in the GAC process); and that as normal for Wikimedia organisations right now it doesn’t have that great a set of measures of outcomes (but lots of good work seems to be being proposed). It's good to see that the staff member is being used both for the project and for general chapter business - that's a model that could work well, providing that one role doesn't distract them too much from the other. I would like to see WMFI apply to the FDC next year in 2014-15 R1 rather than the GAC though, as this really is year-long general funding rather than a project grant... Hope that helps. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Mike,
Thank you for your comments! This is a learning process. Defining the correct and adequately accurate measures is important and we can continue revising them until they are satisfactory. We will welcome support on the choice of the correct financing instruments, while keeping the process in progression. Best, Susannaanas (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Before I address the substance of the proposal, I must bring up a significant compliance issue: WMFI has been in violation of the chapter agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation for several years now. It has not posted a single annual activity report on Reports, ever, nor a single annual financial statement, both of which are required by the agreement. This will not do. WMFI will need to get back into compliance before it would be able to receive any additional grants from the Foundation.

(I note that monthly activity reports and minutes of general assembly meetings do exist on WMFI's own wiki, in Finnish, but I was not able to find clear annual activity reports or financial statements.) Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 22:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This shall be dealt with as soon as possible. --Susannaanas (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The files have been made available in the Reports. We are hoping to get feedback on the requirements for past reporting. --Susannaanas (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! WMFI is now back in compliance with its chapter agreement, as far as I can tell. (It would be nice to link to at least the latest reports from Reports itself, so that users know at a glance what reports are available, without having to click through to the archives, but this does not detract from your compliance.) Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 22:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One major concern and proposed solutions[edit]

Thank you to the GAC and to WMFI for the productive discussion; we are glad to see the improvement and clarification the grna proposal has already undergone, and appreciate WMFI's responsiveness in detailing the measures of success, clarifying staffing, and explaining the proposed collaboration with other Nordic Wikimedia chapters.

WMF would like to support this important project. The one major concern we have is regarding WMFI's lack of experience executing such an ambitious proposal, considering its modest level of activity and financial turnover so far. We would like to explore the possibility of granting the funds to a more mature organization, which could serve as WMFI's fiscal sponsor and advise on project implementation. The planned activities and personnel do not need to change (if a suitable sponsor can be found).

Perhaps our colleagues at the more experienced Wikimedia Sverige (WMSE) would be interested in serving as fiscal sponsors for this project? Since you have already proposed to partner with Wikimedia Sweden in an apprentice-type role, we hope you will be amenable to this grant structure.

Alternatively, you can submit a proposal for a significantly reduced grant, both in terms of activities, budget, and timeline, and execute that smaller scale project to build up WMFI's own track record. We recognize this may be more awkward, and less commensurate with the impressive amount of external funding you have already secured.

Again, we are excited about your ambitious vision for improving the coverage, availability, and technical features of maps on Wikipedia and Commons! It is certainly an under-served and highly useful topic, and is of potentially universal utility to Wikimedians in other communities as well. But we want to make sure we are growing Wikimedia organizations in a reasonable and measured way. Please let me know which option seems more feasible and if you have any questions. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 06:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the thorough, encouraging and constructive response to the application. We have already started discussing with our proposed sponsors and internally within Wikimedia Suomi. I am positive that we will be able to express our opinion shortly. --Susannaanas (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WMSE is interested in becoming fiscal sponsors for WMFI, we are discussing it internally now. I will post back with a definite answer soon. --Jan Ainali (WMSE) (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Asaf: Is there a sample contract for a fiscal sponsor we can look at? --Jan Ainali (WMSE) (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, there is! We'll send you a copy shortly. Thanks for considering this! Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 22:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Jan. An example of the fiscal sponsorship agreement used for Project and Event grants is available publicly here: Grants:PEG/Example fiscal sponsorship agreement for project grants. As always, we are happy to answer any questions about the agreement on the discussion page of the example agreement or by Email. To understand how this is the same or different from WMSE's current agreements with Wikimedia Foundation you may check out this handy comparison chart at Grants:Agreements. You may also visit this summary page for a brief description of how fiscal sponsorships work: Grants:Fiscal sponsorships, and follow up with any questions. Best regards, Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 18:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a small note to passers-by, appendix 3 of the agreement Winifred linked contains a human-readable summary of the fiscal sponsorship agrement. If you're trying to get the details of what's being suggested in a hurry, appendix 3 is a good place to start. Kevin (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WMFI has made a formal decision to agree with the arrangement! --Susannaanas (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Approved as fiscal sponsorship[edit]

This grant has been approved, with Wikimedia Sverige as a fiscal sponsor, if one can be found. Thank you, WMSE, for agreeing to support this project! Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 19:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sorry replying late on this. After the board reviewed the sample contract, on the latest board meeting (minutes in Swedish) the idea of Fiscal sponsorships were rejected. It creates unnecessary administrative overhead and new hierarchies between chapters that does not further our cause. WMSE is still supportive of WMFI and will help them with experience and advice to the extent they wish. WMSE will obviously also continue working within the Wikimaps project just as planned. This was not an easy decision as we want our neighbours and friends to thrive, but never the less we feel that this sorts of fiscal sponsorships to be an bad idea for the movement. --Jan Ainali (WMSE) (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification of status[edit]

I apologize for my mistake: I had misread the above statement to be about WMSE rather than WMFI (as it was). The approval of this proposal still stands, if a fiscal sponsor can be found. We will be discussing this with WMFI over the coming weeks, in hopes of finding a responsible way of funding this worthwhile project. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To WMSE's concern[edit]

I am puzzled by the expression "hierarchies between chapters": we are consistent in expecting chapters to grow in a measured way, and WMFI has had a rather weak record so far, both in terms of activity and in terms of compliance (see above).

We are thrilled at the spurt of energy this past year has showed, and at the work already being organized by Susanna and the Wikimaps team, and we want to support it. But we feel WMFI's organizational capacity is not commensurate with the number of staff and size of expenditure planned for this project.

Our standard solution to allow us to fund worthwhile work in such cases is a fiscal sponsorship, and while we have mostly done this for unincorporated groups so far, it equally applies in this situation, even if this is the first time there was a need for one chapter to fiscally sponsor another. This is neither planned nor considered to be any kind of permanent arrangement or permanent hierarchy that would put WMFI forever on a different footing from WMSE or other chapters.

If you feel it might help, we are happy to have a conference call with the WMSE board to explain our position. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there any reason to why not the WMF itself could act as this sort of sponsor, cutting out the middle man and not setting up more dependencies than needed (and saving everybody from a lot of unnecessary administrative work)? --Jan Ainali (WMSE) (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asaf: Our concern weights mainly on "unnecessary administrative overhead" not serving our mission too well. Either we believe in WMFI to succeed (which I do) or we don't. In case something goes wrong: What can WMSE do that WMF itself can't? If there is concern that WMFI can't spent the grant efficiently as planned or without reporting properly: Make a breakdown on the cashflow and go over to monthly installments together with simple reports before the next installment. If there is a concern that they are not able to implement their plans efficiently give them a mentor/coach that is also informally reporting back (I'm pretty sure we find competent persons in our board and around who are willing to volunteer). I think what is needed is a pragmatic solution rater than adding extra overhead by a third entity in between which I see as a waste of movement resources. --Prolineserver (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement about the state of Wikimedia Finland[edit]

by the Board of Wikimedia Suomi ry to ask the Grants Advisory Committee to reconsider awarding the grant directly to Wikimedia Suomi ry, as a response to the expressed doubt about the capability of the Wikimedia Finland chapter to carry out the planned activities outlined in the application.

The past is not as grim as you think[edit]

Activities carried out in 2013[edit]

There has been a significant increase in project volume in 2013, as can be seen in this documentation. Edit-a-thons, content donations, public relations, participation in activities within Wikimedia and with different actors of open knowledge locally, regionally and internationally. The Wikimaps project was promoted through intense campaigning around the world.

Resources 2013-2014[edit]

The amount of resources gathered already for activities in 2013–2014 is altogether 52,000 € + in-kind resources: The Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture granted Wikimedia Suomi ry 15,000 € for GLAM activities in 2013. The Wikimaps Nordic project was funded by Nordic Culture Fund with an amount of 32,000 € and WMSE takes part in Wikimaps with 5,000 €. In comparison, the requested 63,000 € from WMF is not disproportionate. You should note that it consists of 3 applications put together (Wikimaps 2013, Wikimaps/Wikimaps Nordic 2014 and WMFI 2014), covers 2 years and includes 2 international projects (Wikimaps and Wikimaps Nordic) plus all the chapter activities for a year. The financial statements for 2013 are being handled by a professional accounting agency, and they can provide the final statements during February 2014.

The resources we have are much stronger than before[edit]

New accounting practices[edit]

Due to the grant from the Nordic Culture Fund, we are already obliged to use qualified accounting and auditing services and to provide internationally standardized financial statements (ISA 800). We are introducing the use of open budgeting. is a service that connects a banking service with real-time monitoring of the assets. Anyone, including WMF, can follow the flow of money in real time.

A new experienced board[edit]

The new board of Wikimedia Finland has been staffed to meet the requirements of these new projects. The board is equipped with knowledgeable GLAM, education and social media professionals.

Tarmo Toikkanen, treasurer, is a university researcher with management experience from numerous successful EC and ESF projects in the range of millions of euros. He is also an entrepreneur and has been handling finances for several startup companies. He’s also a board member in several Finnish organizations, including Creative Commons Finland and Open Knowledge Finland. (

Tommi Kovala, chairman, is an entrepreneur and visiting lecturer in Aalto University with experience in organizing large seminars ( and commissioned projects in publishing and advertising. (

Adj Prof Jessica Parland-von Essen runs Brages Press Archive and Pondus network of Swedish content providers. She is an active networker in Finland and the Nordic countries, enthusiastically promoting linked cultural data and digital humanities. She arranged a wiki workshop about historical personalities at the archive. (

Sanna Hirvonen is an educational curator at the Museum of Contemporary Art Kiasma with experience in educational and outreach projects in culture sector. She was part of the organizing team for Kiasma Wikimaraton. (

Johanna Janhonen is an social media specialist and an entrepreneur. She has educated community coordination for 12 years and worked professionally with social media for 7 years. She owns the biggest dollhouse wiki in the world (

Henrik Saari is involved with cultural heritage organizations and he organized the Wikipedia workshop in Rupriikki Media Museum in Tampere. (

The board has strong community backup:

Kimmo Virtanen, vice chair, is the fireman, negotiator and the friendly face of the Finnish Wikipedia. He is a tireless administrator who gets his hands dirty with Lua or photographs for Wikipedia.

Iivari Koutonen, secretary, is an active editor with interest in community management and participating in Wikimedia projects widely. He is an assistant librarian and studies Finno Ugric languages in University of Helsinki.

Jyrki Lehtinen is a GIS specialist and doctoral student of landscape studies, with 60,000 edits in Finnish Language wikipedia since 2008, and a participant in the Wikimaps projects. (

Wikimaps Project manager Susanna Ånäs has extensive experience in organizing international projects in art, design and technology. She prepares her PhD about collaborative online research and storytelling with cultural heritage. (ånäs/0/7b/6b4)


The Board of Wikimedia Suomi ry

Statement from Teemu Leinonen[edit]

I am writing this statement of recommendation at the request of the Wikimedia Suomi’s (Wikimedia Finland) Board.

I have followed closely the progress of the Wikipedia from the very early days, as well as the first steps of the Finnish chapter since 2009. Last year there has been increasing interest on Wikipedia and Wikimedia. Especially, people in the Finnish GLAM organizations, public libraries and schools have been keen on learning more about the Wikipedia / Wikimedia.

The volunteers have responded to the growing demands and have organized number of events and edit-a-thons with museums, libraries and students in schools and universities. I know that they have been bad in communicating all the activities internationally.

The new Board is a great combination of professional organizational and managerial skills and community members. They are capable to carry on the work started and also to contribute to the whole Wikimedia movement. Especially the new projects related to historical maps and Wikipedia are such that the results will benefit not only the Finnish / Nordic Wikipedia but the whole movement.

Teemu Leinonen

Advisory Board Member, Wikimedia Foundation

The statement is online also as a document

Notes on Approval[edit]

This grant request is approved. Thank you for your patience with the grant review process. We appreciate your explanation of WMFI's progress as an organization and have greater confidence in your ability to manage a large grant effectively. We therefore do not require a fiscal sponsor. However, we will set up payment installments for this grant contingent on the acceptance of interim reports. We will work with you to make sure this plan fits well with your activities and timeline. We are excited about this project and expect it will significantly improve maps on Wikipedia and Commons! Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Installments are a standard practice for many grantmaking organisations, thanks for adopting this sensible practice. --Nemo 10:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you everyone for support! --Susannaanas (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed budget changes[edit]

The Board wishes to change the budget according to the table below. The reason are the following:

  1. Joining all participation items in one budget item, thus allowing allocating the funds in participating events more freely. Basically this is a way to make available funds for the Board and association representatives to take part in Wikimania and the Board Training that is being organized in the context.
    1. WMFI will be attending Avoin Suomi 2014 fair, which is an open knowledge event organized by the Prime Minister's Office. The possible costs will be included in the Community Participation budget item.
  2. Transferring those funds from items that are unused.
    1. Board travel expenses are significantly lower than projected, since we organize practically all meetings in Google Hangouts.
    2. WMFI will not be attending The Helsinki Book Fair due to insufficient preparation.
item units unit à total subtotal Remaks
Administrative costs
Accounting 12 months 150 600,00 €
Travel expenses to board meetings 12 months 120 440,00 € - 1 000,00
Server, office, mail, phone 300,00 €
Meeting space rent
1 340,00 €
Publications, PR, Outreach
PR materials 1 000,00 €
Helsinki Book Fair 0,00 € - 1309,60
ITK conference 1 944,00 €
2 944,00 €
Community participation at events
All events 4 959,60 € + 2650,00
+ 1000,00
+ 1309,60
Teemapäivät 2 persons 275 0,00 € - 550,00
Open Knowledge Festival 2 persons 500 0,00 € - 1000,00
Tieto Näkyväksi 2 persons 50 0,00 € - 100,00
Other events 4 persons 250 0,00 € - 1000,00
4 959,60 €
Coordinator H2/2014 50% 6 months 1750 10 500,00 €
Personnel costs 30 % 3 150,00 €
Community coordinator / tech tasks 25% 12 months 875 10 500,00 €
Personnel costs 30 % 3 150,00 €
27 300,00 €
Wikimaps 2013
Wikimaps: Wikimaps coordinator 12/1/2013-12/31/2013 1 month 3 500,00 3 500,00 €
Wikimaps: Employer expenses 30 % 3 500,00 1 050,00 €
GLAM-Wiki, London: Accommodation 3 nights GBP 50,00 179,88 €
International Conference on the History of Cartography, Helsinki, Finland: Participation fee 1 admission 100,00 100,00 €
Amsterdam Hackathon: Flights 1 ticket 280,00 280,00 €
Amsterdam Hackathon: Accommodation 3 nights 30,00 90,00 €
Wikimania: Flights & accommodation 7.–11.8. 1 invoice 1 576,79 1 576,79 €
Wikimania: Participation fee 1 fee USD 79,00 62,02 €
6 838,69 €
Wikimaps Nordic
Wikimaps kick-off 3 800,00 €
Hackathon 7 720,00 €
Coordinator / Wikimaps H1/2014 50% 6 months 1750 10 500,00 €
Personnel costs 30 % 3 150,00 €
Technical or design assignments 5 person months / International 5 months 3500 17 500,00 €
Personnel costs 30 % 4 200,00 € - 1050,00
Local Wikimedia chapters and/or OpenStreetMap assignments 3 person months, Sweden, Denmark, Estonia 3 months 3500 10 500,00 €
Personnel costs 30 % 3 150,00 €
Bookkeeping 800,00 €
Financial statements 350,00 €
Community participation at events 1 050,00 € + 1050,00
61 670,00 €
Edit-a-thon 5 events 510 2 550,00 €
Content donations w/o tech or coordination
Workshop 3 events 780 2 340,00 €
Meetups 5 events 100 500,00 €
5 390,00 €

Thank you for the budget change request. We have the below questions:

  • How many board members signed up for the board training workshop?
    • 2 members are signed up + 1 in the Train the Trainers workshop. We are looking forward to a reply regarding the possibility of the third member to also join the workshop.
  • What other association members are you hoping to sending to Wikimania and for what purpose?
    • One of our Board members has a grant, and Susanna will advance Wikimaps in the hackathon and the main event. We are hoping to offer one grant to the community. Altogether 6 association/community members.
  • What is the reason for decreasing the personnel costs?
    • The first work package is invoiced rather than paid as salary. Since there are no employers costs, nor VAT in service sales between EU countries, the sum is left unused and is repurposed. This is not to say that the remaining work packages would be handled similarly. This cost is also in the Wikimaps budget, which is only partially funded by the WMF.

Thanks, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please find answers to the questions above!
Regards, Susannaanas (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Susannaanas. This budget reallocation request is approved. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request to postpone the September reporting to October[edit]

We request to postpone the deadline of the September report until October 15th. The amount of work due in September is greater than our capacity, and includes vital funding efforts.

--Susannaanas (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This request is approved. Thank you for the update. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request to use the following budget items in 2015[edit]

WMFI has requested extending the grant from Nordic Culture Fund for the Wikimaps project until June. It is likely that we can already provide a report for expenses that were covered by the PEG grant. The proportion of WMF funding in the Wikimaps project has been 15%. Here are the items that will be reported to the Nordic Culture Fund in June:

  • Wiki Loves Maps Hackathon 2 920,00 €. (Wikimaps budget) The event was agreed to be organized in the context of #Hack4FI, and that event was postponed to February from the original December. So we need to make the funds available at that time.
  • Subcontracting 7 500,00 €. (Wikimaps budget) There are work packages planned for Tim Waters for Warper redesign backend and Jeph Paul / Ari Häyrinen for Warper redesign site building and front end development. They have not been started and we wish to transfer the funds to 2015. We will still want to apply for the 2 extra development packages in the 2015 H1 budget.
  • Subcontracting projected side costs 4 200,00 €. (Wikimaps budget) Side costs were reserved for subcontracting or salaries in Wikimaps. The taxes are not applied with EU internal purchase of services, so the items remain untouched. We would like to make them available for salary and side costs for Susanna as acting ED in January. The ED will be selected during January.
  • Danish part of Wikimaps work 4 550,00 €. (Wikimaps budget) This has not been started. With the extension of the grant period from NCF we will be able to put more effort to this.

We would however, request making available the following excess in the PEG grant from 2014 in the 2015 activity:

  • Funds for assistants' work are only partially used. We would like to make them fully available in 2015.
  • Possible excess in the GLAM budget. We will be able to evaluate the amount after all expenses have been covered. We would like to arrange a get-together for the volunteers that participated in the creation of the Tuo kulttuuri Wikipediaan editathon series. There is no detailed plan or budget for this yet.

Happy New Year! --Susannaanas (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request to use remaining money from PEG WMFI_2014[edit]

AHi, this is official request from Wikimedia Suomi per email discussion between Susanna Ånas, Winifred Olliff and Kacie Harold at november 2015 to use remaining $5,228.11 from to cover cost of community participation in Wikimania 2015 (eg travel costs of Teemu Perhiö and Sanna Hirvonen) and Wikimedia Suomi's accounting costs of 2015. --Zache (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The request should have been at the Report page so i moved it to there --Zache (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]