Grants talk:PEG/WM NL/Professionalization/Report

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Thank you for your grant report[edit]

Thank you for submitting this report on time and congratulations on completing your project!

The WMF Grants Program and WMNL have both experienced positive growth since this grant was submitted and approved back in 2010, and we have done a lot to improve our reporting and review processes. Thank you for complying with our current reporting requirements and submitting this report for our review.

General notes[edit]

Some notes on future funding[edit]

Congratulations on the success of your fundraiser and your achievements in that area that are outlined in this report! As WMNL moves forward, you might consider prioritizing the pursuit of external sources of funding, especially those sources that WMNL would have special access to: local sources within the Netherlands and the broader European community and any specialized programs the Chapter might gain access to. We understand that this request was not funded in its entirety and that may be one of the reasons you did not achieve the expected results in this area. Your "professionalization" was in effect, only recent; however, we hope that you will be actively pursuing these external fundraising sources now that you have more resources in place.

Request for a more detailed account of your spending[edit]

Before WMF can accept this report, we will need a more detailed account of your spending. Please break down the general line items provided to specific line items that will give us an idea of how you spend these funds

Thanks for asking. The report has been giving in exactly the same detail as the grant request. The grant agreement required to mail digital copies of receipts or documentation to grants at wikimedia dot org. Those digital have been sent. We're happy to answer any question about digital copies of receipts you have received. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example, "Program free cultural heritage" is very broad: we need to get an idea of on what exactly you spent these funds (for example, local transportation of volunteers, renting a venue for an event, stationery).

Some detail has been added to the grant report. Nearly all spending has been for organizing GLAMcamp Amsterdam. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Include links[edit]

It might be helpful to those reading this report if you were able to include links to some project activities (where applicable).

Some links added. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about Impact and Measures of Success[edit]

  1. Most of your Measures of Success listed in the original grant request are clearly reported on, but we was unable to find clear information on the 2 measures listed below. Would you please let us know how you performed in these areas?
    "At least one additional program has been funded with (partially) external funding (year 1)"
    Not realized. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "At least five of the six programs stated are considered as successful as defined in the specified measures of success (year 1)"
    1. Fundraising - a succes in the timeframe of the grant, see Fundraising related evaluation points as reported
    2. Community support - a success - 75% of activities have been organized and most of them by volunteers, see report on Community support
    3. Free cultural heritage - a succes; a GLAMcamp has been organized and three collaborations have been initiated, as reported
    4. Public libraries - partial success with regard to specific measures what has been achieved has been reported
    5. Wiki loves Monuments - a success is an understatement, see report on WLM; specifif measures was number of photos uploaded, goal was 5000, in 2010 more than 12000 photos were uploaded.
    6. Communication - a success, the report specifies output for each line in the plan.
    Five out of six as I count. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You state "As indicated before, WMNL has managed to establish itself as a respected presence in the field of cultural heritage and is much sough after as a cooperation partner." This is great news! Would you mind providing a few examples that strengthen this statement? For example, would you provide list of organizations that have approached WMNL?
    Thanks. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. When you say, "Activities such as Wiki Loves Monuments and Wiki Loves Bieb introduced new groups to the Wikipedia/Commons phenomenon and the concept of freely available knowledge," we are not sure exactly what you are measuring. How did you assess the impact of these outreach programs?
    We have met people we haven't met before. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Wikimedia Statistics (Erik Zachte), Wiki Loves Monuments brought new editors to Wikipedia. Ziko (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few additional questions[edit]

  1. Would you please clarify the line item "Translation Rally"? We haven't seen it described in your report.
    Detail added to the grant report. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This may become apparent when you provide more details on your spending, but would you also let us know how exactly grant funds went to support the discussions with the Tropenmuseum you mentioned that led to a Wikipedian in Residence there? For example, did any grant funds actually support the Wikipedian in Residence in question or were they merely used to facilitate the discussions leading up to that development?
    No grant funds have been spent on discussions with the Tropenmuseum other than reimbursement of travel costs.Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no Wikipedian in Residence within the timeframe of the grant. So no grant funds have been used to support the Wikipedian in Residence. There will be no Wikipedian in Residence prior to the year 2012. No grant funds have been used to facilitatie discussions.Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We look forward to reviewing your responses to our comments. Wolliff (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted[edit]

Thank you for this report. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 22:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:PEG/WM_NL/Professionalization/Report&oldid=6697306"