Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Medium-term plan 2019/Annual Plan 2021-2022

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki


Isn't this plan a bit late - the WMF financial year already started almost two weeks ago? So presumably that means there's no time for any significant changes that the community might suggest? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the fiscal year began July 1, 2021, and you are correct that the annual plan is a finalized product. As you'll see in some of the annual plan materials, the annual plan is how the Foundation sets objectives for the year ahead, and it is heavily influenced by community processes, such as movement strategy, as well as internal processes such as budgeting, staffing, and coordination. On the content of the plan, Foundation teams collaborate throughout the year with communities about the design and implementation of their work. --KStineRowe (WMF) (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From a time standpoint, it's simply far more efficient to skip over this step when the board simply implements whatever they intended to already do anyway. But don't worry, they totally took the community opinions into consideration, I'm sure. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plan[edit]

Once again, this is not an annual plan. It says absolutely nothing on what the WMF is actually planning to do. It only contains some vague high-level statements. One could say it's a tactical statement (as opposed to a multi-year strategic statement) with a corresponding allocation of resources to very broad areas, but if there's a plan it wasn't shared with us here. Nemo 20:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only came here after one year, to see how this "no plan" was implemented. You were right. Theklan (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OKRs "Milestones"[edit]

An example for OKRs "milestones" under the 2019-2020 annual plan

I have noticed that WMF departments have OKRs "milestones" that aim to operationalise the annual plan. You can find them in the 'Tuning Sessions' slides (example on the right), but I have failed to find them elsewhere. Is it possible to see these in advance, rather than in retrospect? If not, why not? --Gnom (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gnom, great question. The Tuning Session slides, and the broader quarterly reviews they are a part of, are indeed retrospective. They are designed this way, and serve quarterly check-ins for Foundation teams to assess progress on goals and course correct (hence why they don’t exist “in advance”). “OKR” stands for “objective and key results”. The objectives are listed in the Annual Plan materials, and both the objectives and their key results (basically metrics for the objectives) are evaluated in Tuning Sessions. In short, the annual plan is what we hope to achieve in the coming year, and Tuning Sessions with their slides are a check-in on how we’re doing. To your broader question about how to get involved in real time, all objectives and key results have projects and teams behind them, which regularly offer opportunities for communities to engage and provide feedback. . --KStineRowe (WMF) (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi KStineRowe (WMF), thank you. I probably used the wrong terminology in my question, so please allow me to ask again: In the Tuning Sessions slides, teams report on their progress on the level of individual projects or deliverables or "milestones" (in the example on the right: 'policy statement', 'framework', 'KPIs', etc.). Is "milestones" the correct term for these? My question was: Is it possible to learn about what these "milestones" are in advance, and not just read about them later in the Tuning Sessions slides? If not, why not? --Gnom (talk)
Ah gotcha, Gnom. “Key Results” is the term used across the organization for the metrics of how we achieve our objectives. “Milestones” is a more generic term, used in this case by the Operations Department to describe components of the key results they want to achieve. For the main focus area objectives under this year’s Annual Plan, we have published the summarized key results. Those are listed in the Annual Plan slides (slides 9-22, see “how we’ll measure.”). For the sake of simplicity, and because most key results are still in progress, we kept the Meta page to objectives. Staff spend time in the first quarter (July-September) refining how to measure their impact as they start planning for and designing their work for the year. --KStineRowe (WMF) (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, and will these be published? Last year, they weren't (except for the Tuning Sessions slides), but in the past, they sometimes were, like here. --Gnom (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's not a plan to share the full set of Key Results ahead of the first quarter Tuning Session slides this year - as I mentioned, they're still evolving. As you pointed out, some teams have and do publish their KRs, but this level of detail and communications is generally left to a team by team basis. For example, you can follow the work of the Movement Strategy team here, and Community Resources here. Publishing all the KRs with the annual plan objectives is something we can think about for future years. --KStineRowe (WMF) (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can we not create a page where each team publishes their Key Results once they are ready? That would be super helpful for community members who are working on an issue that touches on the work of a specific team. --Gnom (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnom Thanks for bringing forward this idea. My team (movement communications) is looking at how we can share better what the Foundation is working on with the movement. We are looking at simplifying and streamlining the information we share, and are actively thinking about how to best elevate different teams’ key results and progress beyond the tuning session slides - which have historically been how we track and share progress internally. I will explore your idea of a central page with the team further and how we can better connect Foundation teams and community members working on similar issues. I am also in the annual planning conversation around communications in case you are considering joining. MPaul (WMF) (talk) 09:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MPaul (WMF): Thank you for your response, but what you are saying sounds as if I were asking you to create an additional document. That is not what my question is about. Instead, I would like to see the existing document that simply lists all teams' goals for the fiscal year, in the most straightforward and boring fashion you can imagine. There must be such a document because there is one at any organisation similar to the WMF. You can see the equivalent document for Wikimedia Deutschland here. (Please do tell me if I am still not being clear.) And thank you for offering to join the meeting with your team, but my question is not about communications, and there seems to be no meeting where one can ask such a question. --Gnom (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnom thank you for the example, it's really helpful to understand!
The information you are looking for is here, we just use different terms than the example you shared. I'll use the Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) example as a translation guide. Most (but not all) of the same info is also here.
So if you take what WMDE call "Strategies" e.g. Volunteers, we call them "Medium term priority or MTP" e.g. Thriving Movement.
What WMDE calls "Impact Goal" e.g. Volunteers have optimal working conditions in the communities for collaborating on Free Knowledge, for us this is the "Outcomes" of the MTP e.g. We will welcome and support newcomers. Unfortunately, this is unhelpfully not included in the presentation but included as a link. The link works once you download the deck but does not in the preview, something for us to improve next time!
What WMDE calls "Objectives 2021 > What outcome do we want to achieve next:" e.g. Community members should be able to make their contributions to Free Knowledge in the best possible way. We have called "Focus area" e.g. Ensure Wikimedians have the system and tools they need to succeed. What WMDE calls "What we want to achieve by 2021", we have called "Objective".
What WMDE calls "How we can tell if we have been successful:", we have called "How we'll measure".
I'm sorry it took us a while to get there and thank you for bearing with us :-D Thank you also for the link, I can see some good ways to share the annual plan information there that we can use to improve how we do this next year! MPaul (WMF) (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, MPaul (WMF). Concerning your words, "[m]ost (but not all)": Can we please amend the annual plan page so that all of this is collected in one place for people to find? You surely already have such a document somewhere (in a GDoc, on the office wiki – somewhere). Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnom Yes, all of it is here in one place. Apologies, my previous message was confusing to read. MPaul (WMF) (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MPaul (WMF): Okay, can we include the content from the presentation slides in the Meta page so that it is really all in one place? I would volunteer. Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikimedia application data"[edit]

I cannot remember seeing this term before, and there is no explaining glossary. What does it mean? Ainali talkcontributions 22:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ainali, thank you for the question. In the planning process for this OKR, we meant this more as an expression of intent rather than a precise definition. The working definition we have been using internally is "structured data elements and records that are generated by the operation of our publicly accessible systems." By this, we intend to describe entity and event metadata that are generated by normal system operations, and in our planing is distinguished from similar but sometimes related and sometimes overlapping or sub-sets of data such as product metrics data, production user data, survey data, and third party data. It doesn't include content revision data, which is less structured and not easily subject to the kinds of things we want to do and enable with the data.
-- TTaylor (WMF) (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that makes it clearer! Ainali talkcontributions 15:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, TTaylor (WMF). Is this application data for internal use only, or is it (also) designed to aid reusers? If the latter, could you give an example of how this data would aid a reuser? --Andreas JN466 14:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the application data we are describing is already available to the public, either directly through Wikimedia Downloads or through WMF-hosted tools such as Quarry, Wiki Stats, and sometimes is used by third-party tools also, such as this Listen to Wikipedia project, among many others. We are also describing data that we don't release to the public for reasons related to user and contributor privacy, sensitivity related to compliance with laws and regulations, etc.
--TTaylor (WMF) (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a page at or something else where the project is discribed and coordinated. It is a topic where I have talked about with Wikimedia Germany when they have done some analytics about the number of new registered users. There I have asked them how this analytics is done. Automatic question answering is a field with from my point of view a lot of potential. It is a topic where I am interested in. I am interested in describing the public accessible data structures and in creating a program to easily creating structured queries. Maybe Wikifunctions helps by creating such a program with a collection of functions that can be used in the program to create the query. Do you think that there is potential to optimize the creating of queries and do you think that the project reduces the staff that is needed for analytics. From my point of view it is an important topic to think about what follows by an optimiziation. After my understanding and my experience I usually spend the most time when I do analytics with understanding the data structures. If they are well documented then it can go faster or be fully automatized and with that there follows from my perspective a responsibilty of the Wikimedia Foundation for the Contractors and Employees in that area to help them get work in other topics preferably within the Wikimedia Foundation.--Hogü-456 (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have not yet created the page, as the coordination of this work is still in the initial stages and has not reached kickoff yet. Within the next month, I expect we will have more information to share. As I described above, there are many different ways to access and query the data we make available. They serve a wide range of use cases, and so they vary quite a bit. Your point about well-documented data structures is important, and tackling that issue is part of the work we intend to do.
-- TTaylor (WMF) (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TTaylor (WMF): can you please tell me what for effects the project has for the jobs of the people who do analytics at the Wikimedia Foundation. From my point of view it is an optimiziation project if the data structures were described. If you dont have further information then I will wait until the project starts.--Hogü-456 (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hogü-456: We're working on the full and detailed explanation of the work. It is coming, to be posted in September.
--TTaylor (WMF) (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hierarchical structure[edit]

Hello. I am wondering if keeping these annual plan pages as subpages of the medium-term page(s) is the best route. It creates a somewhat confusing page title. I think using links and categories would help make it clear that an annual plan falls under a specific medium-term plan, if that is indeed the intention. Killiondude (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Killiondude. Thanks for the suggestion and I agree, the subpage structure is confusing. We did it this way to follow suit with the Annual Plans from recent years, which are all intended to make progress toward our Medium Term Plan goals. Essentially to show that annual goals work towards multi-year goals. Your point is well-taken that the current page structure doesn’t showcase this hierarchy well. Improving this would require an overhaul of the page structures for the past three Annual Plans, so we can’t really do it this time, but we will definitely take this suggestion into consideration ahead of time for future years. Thanks again for the thought. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental sustainability[edit]

Missing environmental impact statement[edit]

Please forgive me for sounding like a broken record, but the Board of Trustees' 2017 Environmental Impact Resolution states, "Starting in 2018, we will include an environmental impact statement in our annual plan." Like in past years, this has apparently been forgotten again (even though it is required by a standing Board resolution!), and as every year, I am bringing this point up again (with a growing feeling of helplessness). Can I ask you to amend the published annual plan to meet this requirement? --Gnom (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Programmes on environmental sustainability[edit]

One of the prioritised initiatives for the Movement Strategy implementation process calls on the Wikimedia Foundation to "Support Environmental Sustainability Practices", namely to (1) become carbon-neutral by 2030, and (2) to establish an 'ecosystem for climate action'. What programmes in the 2021-2022 annual plan will help us move forward on this? --Gnom (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gnom I’ll reply to both of your questions together. Regarding the environmental impact statement, you’re right that this wasn’t mentioned in our annual plan objectives. This environmental sustainability work is now part of our normal Foundation operations, and generally speaking, not all areas of our recurring work are assigned formal annual plan objectives. While it wasn’t published in the annual plan, the work has not been forgotten, and we will continue to do an annual carbon footprint evaluation and include an impact statement (we are in the process of finalizing the 2020 report right now and will publish it after it’s completed). Regarding programs on environmental sustainability, questions around our climate footprint did play a part in our annual planning discussions. Some of the themes we touched on were continuing to minimize travel and in person events for Foundation staff plus including environmental criteria as part of selecting vendors and locations for our data centers. --JBaldwin (WMF) (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JBaldwin (WMF), Thank you for your response, but don't you agree with me that "we will include an environmental impact statement in our annual plan" clearly requires the WMF to include an environmental impact statement in the annual plan? To me, this is ignoring a standing board resolution – am I missing something here?
Concerning my second question: It is interesting to hear about what you "touched on" environmental sustainability in the "annual planning discussions". But I would like to know what budgets, staff, and programmes are included in the annual plan about the implementation of the prioritised initiative "Support Environmental Sustainability Practices". If the answer is 'none', please say so. --Gnom (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed in my previous answer, not all areas of work, especially those that are recurring, are assigned annual plan objectives. While we don’t have a segregated budget for this work, we do have staff who will be working on this project and have budgeted for a carbon footprint evaluation by an outside expert. Additionally there are other staff and resources that have some aspects of sustainability related work integrated into other responsibilities - like the data center procurement activities that I referenced above. For more questions about our environmental and sustainability work, please join our live annual plan Conversation with Jaime Villagomez, our head of Finance & Administration, and Lisa Seitz-Gruwell, our head of Advancement. --JBaldwin (WMF) (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  1. How do I find out which departments that are listed here are in which of these Annual Plan categories? For example, there are departments called "Apps Engineering", "IT services", "Technology", "Analytics", "Architecture," etc., all of which employ computer scientists. Which of these are part of "Thriving Movement", which are part of "Technical Infrastructure", which are part of "Platform Evolution", etc.?
  2. Where do I find further breakdowns of these categories like "Thriving Movement," "Technical Infrastructure", etc.? This Annual Plan says we're spending a quarter of the money on "Thriving Movement" and a quarter of the money on "Technical Infrastructure"... surely there is more detail than just those four words to describe how we're spending half the money? :-)
  3. Is there a "real" (non-marketing-speak) version of the Annual Plan, or certified financial statements that have things like a Profit & Loss Statement, a Balance Sheet, a Statement of Cash Flows, and follows GAAP? (I see the audited financial statement from 19-20 here... when will 20-21 be available?) I have a hard time matching the categories in the audited financials with the categories in the Annual Plan because the categories in the Annual Plan are, um, unique. Where can I find the "budgeted v. actuals" report for 20/21 and then the budget for 21/22 (the budget that would appear on the budget v actuals for 21/22, which appears not to be in the budget section of the annual plan).

Thanks in advance for answering these questions. Levivich (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Levivich - I’ll take questions 1 and 2 to start. As I’ve shared above, the annual plan exists to help Foundation teams plan for the year ahead by setting high-level objectives that we refine and execute throughout the year. It’s not meant to be a detailed playbook of activities. Our annual plan is organized according to the priority areas of the Medium Term Plan: Brand awareness, Worldwide readership, Thriving Movement, Platform evolution, and Global advocacy. Think of these as multi-year categories about what we hope to achieve. At the Foundation, this work is implemented by multiple departments. The departments you see listed on the website are indeed our departments - Product, Communications, Advancement, Technology, etc. Each MTP priority is usually supported by multiple departments, as we’re a pretty collaborative organization. ;) We do not have departments for “IT services”, “Analytics”, “Architecture” - these are usually teams that fall within departments. To learn more about the specific work happening under our annual plan categories, I’d encourage you to check out our annual plan video series and join our live annual plan conversations hosted in the next few weeks with the leaders of different departments. For Thriving Movement specifically, Vice President of Community Resilience & Sustainability, Maggie Dennis, is hosting an additional office hours with information here. --KStineRowe (WMF) (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm afraid there's a bit of confusion; I'm not actually hosting an additional office hour; I'm part of one of the planned office hours, with the Legal & Talent Culture departments. :) I probably won't be hosting another office hour of my own until September, having hosted one just a few weeks ago. That said, Levivich, Thriving Movement does indeed involve multiple departments and teams. I'm working on a page for Meta which specifics which teams are working on which objectives, but staff include multiple teams from Legal, Technology, Product, Communications and Advancement. I hope you can join the office hour where I will be and, if not, I hope that once I get a page up on Meta it will help make that more clear! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@KStineRowe (WMF) and Mdennis (WMF): thank you for your quick answers! What I'm looking to find out, and I can't seem to find it in the financial reports or the annual report, is the answer to questions like these: What % or $ of our resources are being spent on: fixing the problems with the mobile app v. Community Engagement v. Discussion Tools v. Visual Editor v. UCOC v. clearing phab tickets v. Enterprise API v. etc. etc. ... how much did we spend on each of those things (and other WMF projects) last year? How much are we planning to spend on each this year? How do I find this information? Thanks again, Levivich (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Levivich, On the third question, for FY20-21, we just completed our fiscal year on June 30, 2021. We are going through our process to ‘close the books’ and will be starting the audit process soon for the fiscal year Jul 2020 to June 2021. Our audit process is scheduled to be completed in early October 2021 and we will publish it shortly after, in our usual place here.
We also share financial reports on a quarterly basis that includes a comparison of budget vs. actuals as part of our quarterly reporting and monitoring process that we call our “Tuning Sessions”. You can find those financial reports in the Finance & Administration decks on this page. You can see the most recent report that was completed for our third quarter. Our next report for the full year will be published in our usual cycle in August. These quarterly budget vs. actual reports do conform to GAAP except in unusual instances that we explain in footnotes to the report.
We have presented our financial information on pages 33 to 37 of our Annual Plan Overview to align better with the foundation’s overarching priorities presented on pages 3 to 31. We can also post a further summary that presents the financial information in a tabular format breaking it down by programmatic expense etc, which I hope is responsive to your question.
Do note though that some of the granular expense examples you mention in your last follow up do not, for the most part, exist as the financial tracking we do is at a Medium-term Plan priority or objective level and not at the level of individual tasks or projects. JBaldwin (WMF) (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, JBaldwin (WMF), the link to the quarterly reviews was extremely helpful: those slide decks have breakdowns and metrics for the different Annual Plan categories like "Thriving Movement." I'm still left a bit confused, though: what is the difference between Thriving Movement, Worldwide Readership, and Brand Awareness (why aren't the latter two part of the first)? Similarly, what is the difference between Technical Infrastructure (23.8% of the budget, which "includes all the engineering and technology needed to build and maintain our projects, platform, and internal infrastructure that is outside of our Medium-term Plan priorities like Worldwide Readership and Thriving Movement") and "Platform Evolution" (5.3%) which seems to be the same thing--what is in Platform Evolution that isn't in Technical Infrastructure and vice versa (it's a huge difference between those budget allocations)? Without my having to read the several hundred pages of quarterly reports, is there a summary or explanation somewhere?
For example, one thing that confuses me is that the Annual Plan intro says "This year’s plan involves three overarching priorities—ensuring a thriving movement, an evolved platform on which that movement can thrive, and a resilient and inclusive Foundation to carry out this work." But Thriving Movement is 24.5%, "Resilient & Inclusive Foundation" is 23.5% (half is Fundraising, half is General & Admin) and "Platform Evolution" is 5.3%. That's a little over 50% of the total. Why is "Platform Evolution" so small, and if Technical Infrastructure is 23.8%, isn't it (whatever "it" is) de facto a higher overarching priority than Platform Evolution? We have three overarching priorities but we're only spending half the money on them, and we're spending ~5x on a non-priority category than we're spending on one of the three priority categories? I don't get it. :-) Levivich (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Levivich, Platform Evolution is a category of the Medium Term Plan which reflects our work modernizing Wikimedia’s technical ecosystem for the future. It focuses on building new capabilities and features equitably for both existing and new communities. This includes work on machine learning, rich media, structured content, and supporting new experiences. This area of work is important for Wikimedia’s ability to stay relevant and useful for editors and readers alike. You can read our objectives for Platform Evolution that are specific to this year here. Platform Evolution doesn’t capture all our work to support our existing software and services to keep our Wikimedia platform operating effectively. This is captured in our budget as Technical Infrastructure. This includes our physical infrastructure (Data Centers), security enhancements, Wikimedia’s needs for computation, storage, and traffic, and documentation and support for staff and volunteer developers - among many other things. Objectives 5, 6, and 7 broadly encompass our “Technical Infrastructure” budget category. This work requires a lot of staff and resources in order to keep our technical systems functioning, which is why have it under its own budget category. Also, because our work in Platform Evolution grows each year, the size and sophistication of the technical infrastructure that supports it grows as well. In terms of why Platform Evolution is a “focus area” for this year’s annual plan, identifying “focus areas” is a narrative way of describing new strategic priorities that we really want to highlight for the year, not about describing the largest budget categories. While monetary investments may be small, the work in Platform Evolution leads the way for the rest of the work under our Technical Infrastructure category. This year, we wanted to highlight our work improving our platform to support equitable and inclusive growth of the movement. All in all figuring out how to share about our work is a tough balance, because there is so much we do at the Foundation to support and expand free knowledge around the world. Thanks for following up to have better clarity! For more about these topic areas, I recommend joining the annual plan conversation with leaders from our Product and Technology Departments on July 28 --CFloyd (WMF) (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Organsation for the Endowment[edit]

Hello, Jaime Villagomez mentioned in his video about the Finance and Administration topics that there will be a own organization for the Endowment what is currenctly at the Tides Foundation. What will be the name for this third organization after Wikimedia Enterprise LLC and where will this be registered and is there then own staff at this organization or not.--Hogü-456 (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the question Hogü-456. The Wikimedia Endowment will be its own 501c3 charity, incorporated in the U.S. It will simply be called the Wikimedia Endowment and it will share staff with the Wikimedia Foundation through a cost-sharing agreement. Here is the board resolution that gives more background. --Lgruwell-WMF (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Data Dashboard[edit]


what for a software will you use for the data dashboard that will be introduced at the begin of next year in January 2022 within the Wikimedia Foundation and do you plan to publish the source code for that. For me this is an interesting part and I think it were great if it is possible that you use for this an open source or free software. Please ask people before you buy a software and think about internal solutions and tell a bit more what the needs of the software for the dashboards is. What are the funcionalities that you need in the dashboards.--Hogü-456 (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hogü-456, we intend to use Superset, an open source software package for visualization, and that access to the data will be subject to privacy and sensitivity controls. --CMacholan (WMF) (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Software Licences[edit]


how high are propably the costs for Software Licences in 2021-2022 for the Wikimedia Foundation and can you please give a list of the internal used software in the Wikimedia Foundation for what you pay for licenses and for what you use this software. I dont need it in a detailed way and I think it is an important topic to understand for what software you pay.--Hogü-456 (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hogü-456. We don't currently publish this information or share this level of budget detail, but we are planning to do more communications about our use of software this coming year to give community members more insight into our practices. In general, the software choices we make are guided by business operational needs, organizational capacity, security, privacy and operational compliance.
This means we opt for software that allows our lean IT team to most effectively support a sizable remote workforce (keeping administrative costs low in order to direct the majority of the budget toward programmatic work) while maintaining privacy and security compliance (for example, when we work with banks, we are required to use industry standard tools). --EBarrios (WMF) (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baselines and targets[edit]

Could you please share the baselines and targets for the objectives listed in the plan with us? Thanks so much, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frank Schulenburg, please see the discussion above on Milestones. --KStineRowe (WMF) (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


It is stated that the total revenue of FY21-22 is 150 US$ million. Where we could see the full breakdown behind this number? Especially, the income source. (How many percent is from donations, external grants, etc)

Thank you. Rtnf (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rtnf, thank you for your question. The fundraising team is currently working on a report for the fiscal year that just wrapped up. You can see the revenue channel breakdown in the key stats section of the previous year's 2019-2020 fundraising report. We will post the new 2020-2021 fundraising report on meta in the next quarter. Ppena (WMF) (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please publish the Fundraisingreport earlier as you plan and tell the goals for fundraising for next year by country as far as you know them. From my point of view it should be possible to generate the report faster. After my understanding of accounting it is possible to get automatically the amount of a specific account. Some gifts can be classified in different categories and at such cases I think it is a daily job to categorize the income and put it to the correct account. As far as I have read the goals for fiscal year 2021-2022 one is to describe data fields. This is something what I support and what I think that it can help make it easier to create reports like the Fundraising report. --Hogü-456 (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile editing should be prioritized[edit]

Mobile viewing and editing optimizations should be prioritized. Sad that it is not even mentioned in goals.

Making mobile editing easier will be a solution for multiple issues including editor retention, global participation, bridging gender gap in poor communities, places where two laptops in one home is not common, etc.

Mobile editing needs to be optimized individually for each project. Especially, mobile editors would become the primary human contributors to Wiktionary, Commons, Wikivoyage, etc and would cut the Gordian Knot. My previous request to make progressive web apps: [1] -Vis M (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vis M: I've added mobile editing to the list of topics to discuss in tomorrow's Annual Plan Conversation. Thanks. ELappen (WMF) (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Vis M (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @Vis M: Wanted to close the loop here that this question was answered live last week. The YouTube recording is here and will be also on Commons shortly, the answer is at 23:30 (wanted to link to the correct time but the link gets blocked by Meta's spam filter). Toby speaks about how the Product Department is building with a mobile first mentality, and points to the Growth team's work on new editor retention as an example. Tajh talks about Technology's plans this year to build a new data center in Europe with the intention of reducing mobile latency and improving the overall mobile experience in Western and Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Thanks for asking this question! --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ELappen (WMF): Thank you so much! Vis M (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global templates[edit]

The page Gathering_support_from_local_projects_for_global_templates shows support from at least twenty local wiki communities for developing global templates. Communities want them. Unfortunately I cannot attend tomorrows meeting. @TNegrin (WMF):, could you please answer this question? Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ad Huikeshoven: I've added this question to the queue for tomorrow. Thanks. ELappen (WMF) (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @ELappen (WMF). @Amire80: I found the question at 18'37" in the video, and the answer at 19'24" until 21'30". Nice answer: impactful project. Work for the second half of this year i.a. creating a project plan, sorting out technical difficulties, and finding funding. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility work under this year’s Annual Plan[edit]

During the Annual Plan Conversation with Product and Technology, there was a specific question about the Foundation’s work this fiscal year on accessibility (at 21:30). I wanted to follow up with more details on that.

First of all, the Wikimedia Design Style Guide, with its design principles and accessibility focus, is our foundation for carrying out this work.

Under this Annual Plan, the Desktop Improvements team owns a team objective about content accessibility standards, which aims to ensure that all new Readers Web products comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 level AA. You can review the objective and all of the tasks supporting it on Phabricator. Another stream of work on this objective is ensuring that the future Wikimedia Vue.js user-interface library in development and the current standard library Object-Oriented User Interface (OOUI) continues to meet these criteria, both by automated testing and accessibility checklists and by in-person testing with our contract partner American Foundation for the Blind.

This team objective feeds the Foundation Worldwide Readership objective to “increase site utility amongst readers; maintain utility for existing editors”, which means it will be trackable both in the Phabricator task linked above and in the Foundation’s quarterly tuning sessions. –Volker E. (WMF) (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube video[edit]

Hi, just a question for knowing where videos present on Google chanal are located in commons ? I think specifically about the video concerning the annual plan accessible from here. Best, Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 22:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lionel Scheepmans: it took us a bit of time to complete the uploads, but all the Annual Plan videos are now on Commons and linked on this Annual Plan page. The videos live in the Wikimedia Foundation's 2021-22 Annual Plan Conversations category on Commons. I'm not sure if I have fully answered your question--depending on the content of the video on the YouTube channel, those videos can live in different places on Commons. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, perfect @ELappen (WMF) Thanks a lot ! Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 01:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]