Jump to content

Wikimedia Conference 2016/Report

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Report accepted
This report for a Conference Grant approved in FY 2015-16 has been reviewed and accepted by the Wikimedia Foundation.
  • To read the approved grant submission describing the plan for this project, please visit Grants:Wikimedia Conference 2016.
  • You may still comment on this report on its discussion page, or visit the discussion page to read the discussion about this report.
  • You are welcome to Email conferencegrants at wikimedia dot org at any time if you have questions or concerns about this report.

Wikimedia Conference 2016 – from above

Compliance and completion[edit]

Did you comply with the requirements specified by WMF in the grant agreement?
Is your project completed?
Did you use any of the grant funds?

Activities and lessons learned[edit]

This section describes what the grantee did, and what the grantee learned from implementing the project. This section should be useful to others implementing similar projects and is an opportunity for the grantee to reflect on the project's performance.


Provide a detailed list of activities performed to complete this project, descriptions of these activities, and the amount of time spent on each activity. This section should also include a list of participants, or a link to pictures, blog posts, or videos from the project or event.

Activities Program and Engagement Coordinator[edit]

The following section provides a brief overview of the tasks executed by the Program and Engagement Coordinator (PEC) Cornelius Kibelka from October 1, 2015 until July 30, 2016. An overview of all work packages and activities can be found below.

Follow-Up Work

Results of the survey done by the Partnerships & Resource Development group, an initiative created in the aftermath of the Wikimedia Conference 2015 with extensive support by the PEC

One of the main goals and tasks of the Program and Engagement Coordinator is to keep participants of the Wikimedia Conference engaged and motivate them to work further on their topics between the conferences. As stated in the previous report, this is not an easy task: Motivating people to voluntarily work on WMCON topics requests a lot of patience, support and emails. Additionally, the scope of the PEC’s efforts also depends on the topic: For certain areas and topics, some organizations already dedicate time and resources to further develop them and keep it rolling. They mainly work independently, report back and do not demand a lot of support from the PEC. Other topics need more support and poking, e.g. connecting peers with each other, providing technical support for creating meta pages, providing logistic supports for events, etc.

Although the process is sometimes slower than expected and still in an experimental stage, there are results to share. The PEC is especially proud to have engaged people around the topic of Partnerships and Resource Development. A small working group with Anne-Laure Prévost (WMFR), John Andersson (WMSE) and Nikki Zeuner (WMDE) was founded. With the help of the PEC, a survey among the Wikimedia Chapters on partnerships and external fundraising was created in October. In the meantime, the group holds regular calls and works towards creating more learning material for affiliates on this topic.

Other topics to follow-up on were Public Policy, Communications, Board trainings, Impact and Community Support. You can find an overview and results of the follow-up work on Wikimedia Conference/Follow-Up.

Developing a new program design process with four cornerstones

The program for the Wikimedia Conference 2016 was built along four so-called cornerstones: "How to move forward" (originally "Wild card/hot topics"), "Movement Impact", "Capacity Building & Learning" and "Facilitated Social Activities"

In October 2015, the PEC started to work together with Nicole Ebber, the adviser to the ED on International Relations, on an improved program design process for the 2016 conference. Based on the feedback provided in the participants’ survey of the Wikimedia Conference 2015, as well as in public conversations during the WMCON Follow-Up Day prior to Wikimania 2015 in Mexico City and at the CEE Meeting 2015 in Estonia, Cornelius and Nicole developed the main elements of the new design process. They started building the program along four “cornerstones”: Capacity Building & Learning, a – to be defined – overarching Movement topic, Wild Card/hot topics and facilitated social activities.

Following consultations with peers at the Wikimedia Foundation, in Chapters and User Groups, Nicole and Cornelius decided to not have a program team again, but instead they created a survey to retrieve the needs, wishes and experiences of WMCON’s participants. Additionally, both consulted with several volunteer program advisors on specific program decisions. In contrast to previous years, the PEC took over the main responsibility to create the program, while Nicole acted as the curator and advisor for strategic program decisions. In the course of consultations and further refinements of the process, Cornelius and Nicole decided the Movement topic for the Wikimedia Conference 2016 to be “Movement Impact”. Together with different colleagues at the Wikimedia Foundation, eligibility criteria for the conference participants were set up as well: To ensure high rates of active involvement, participating affiliates were obliged to be up to date with their annual reporting and to have a track record of activities.

A survey-based program

For two tracks – Capcity Building & Learning as well as Movement Impact – we asked for input in the registration form. The PEC clustered, summarized and analized all the answers and built the program upon them.

Together with WMDE’s ZEN team and WMF’s Learning and Evaluation team, the PEC developed 11 program related questions for the registration form. Analyzing the answers enabled us to design the program for and together with the participants. On top of this, an organizational briefing for the affiliates was developed that was meant to provide guidance on how to select their delegates. Between December 1 and January 15, all participants registered and everyone answered the 11 questions in the registration form. The actual program design process started in mid-January and was built upon these inputs.

Between mid-January and end of March, the PEC devoted himself to the definition of the program. First, the answers regarding Movement Impact had to be analyzed, clustered and post-processed (see an analysis of the answers). Together with WMDE’s ZEN team and the program adviser Anne-Laure Prévost (WMFR), Cornelius and Nicole held a workshop to identify guiding questions for the track.

In the survey, the PEC also asked the participants what skills, tools and resources they would like to learn or bring back to their home organizations and, on the other hand, how participants could contribute to the conference itself. The PEC matched the answers for both questions, prioritized the most wanted topics and approached speakers to hold sessions on Capacity Building & Learning.

From “Wildcard topics” to “How to move forward”

Besides the Movement Impact track and the Capacity Building & Learning track, the PEC and Nicole intentionally left space for “Wild Card” topics. As during the time of the actual program design process the leadership crisis at WMF peaked, WMDE leadership decided to dedicate time and space for sessions tackling the most burning questions around leadership and future decision-making. Based on this decision, especially Nicole reached out to the relevant stakeholders at WMF – Board of Trustees, staff, interim ED – to create meaningful sessions for the conference. As the intention was to create sessions that did not deal with stories from the past and old narratives, but to actually address current issues, initiate a healing process and give a more visionary perspective, the “Wild Card” track was renamed to “How to Move Forward”.

Prior to the conference itself, the PEC fulfilled the usual tasks like publishing a session outline, thorough briefing the speakers and creating and sharing material for preparation of the participants. Based on the experience from the previous Wikimedia Conference, Nicole and Cornelius focused even more on choosing and designing the best format for each session. As an example they created a 360 min working session on Impact, to actually work more intensively and outcome driven on this challenging theme. We also pro-actively provided space and time for a respectful dialogue around the leadership crisis at WMF and thus contributed to restorative and productive proceedings towards emerging from that crisis.

Pre-Conference Events

With the support of the PEC, Frans Grijsenhout (chair of WMNL) and Tim Moritz Hector (chair of WMDE) organized a two day Board Training workshop for a small group of board members of APG chapters during the pre-conference of the Wikimedia Conference 2016

The Community Engagement department had again chosen the Wikimedia Conference as a good place to organize the so-called “Learning Days” on Wednesday and Thursdays prior to the conference itself. For both days, several WMF teams created a two-track-program with workshops and discussions rounds for interested affiliate representative.

Besides the Learning Days, Frans Grijsenhout (chair of WMNL) and Tim Moritz Hector (chair of WMDE) organized a two day Board Training workshop for a small group of board members of APG chapters. Topics were the international Wikimedia movement, role and tasks of board members and the handling of conflicts of interests. The PEC provided extensive support to the two organizing chairs.

The Conference

Two weeks before the Conference, Cornelius finalized and published the schedule of the conference. At the Wikimedia Conference itself, the PEC took care of all things necessary around the program, which included providing all participants with program related information, supporting session leads in all their needs and, together with the volunteers, documenting all sessions. Additionally, the PEC interviewed almost all speakers (so-called “Outcome Interviews”) to gather input for improvement and note eventually agreed next steps for the documentation.

The concept of the Program and Engagement Coordination is designed in a way that most work for the PEC is done before the conference itself, and that everything is prepared perfectly to ensure a smooth conference. Thus, the tasks for the PEC at the conference itself are mostly supporting all volunteers, participants, speakers to focus on the program and the logistics coordinator as well as handling unexpected situations.

Documentation and Follow-Up

During the pre-conference of Wikimania 2016, we organized a WMCON Follow-Up Day to follow-up on important topics of the Wikimedia Conference

After the Wikimedia Conference, Cornelius focused on two things: Documentation and evaluation. Together with the “Visiting Wikimedian” Teele Vaalma, he wrote the documentation summaries for all sessions, based on the notes taken by the volunteers. Before publication, he had them reviewed by all speakers. Together with Christof Pins from WMDE’s ZEN team, he further evaluated the participants’ feedback from the survey and published the evaluation.

Only nine weeks after the Wikimedia Conference, Wikimania took place in Esino Lario, Italy. To keep the participants of the Wikimedia Conference engaged and provide continuity to the most relevant topics of the conference, Cornelius and Nicole organized, as in 2015, a “WMCON Follow-Up Day” during the pre-conference. Cornelius invited several speakers of the conference to hold 90 min workshops. Due to the broad variety of Wikimania pre-conference sessions, attendance was not as high as expected, but still satisfying. A further documentation of the WMCON Follow-Up Day will be published soon.

Overview of Activities of the Program and Engagement Coordinator[edit]

Area Task (summarized)
Project management Create project plan
Update/adjust project plan
Evaluation Design survey
Publish survey
Evaluate survey
Publish survey results
Write the report (together with the Logistics Coordinator)
Documentation Documentation concept / design (with facilitators)
Create organizational profile form
Send organizational profile form
Evaluate/Print organizational profiles
Find documentation volunteers for WMCON
Coordinate documentation volunteers for WMCON
Post-processing / evaluation of the documentation
Publish documentation of WMCON
Debrief with facilitators
Continuous engagement Constant communication with the movement public (in any form)
Identify and find thematic ambassadors
Identify and define important (major) topics
Check importance of topics and status
Outcome orientation Communication with the sessions leads and participants; inform specific target groups about specific sessions
Continuous consulting with the International Relations advisor, the WMDE communications team and evaluation team
Building bridges Preparation of the WMCON Follow-Up Day
Creating awareness for the Wikimania pre-conference day
Selection of topics for the Wikimania pre-conference day, inviting speakers
Logistical organization of the follow-up today, together with the Program Team of the Wikimania
Documentation of session of the follow-up day

Activities Event and Logistics Coordinator[edit]

The following section provides a brief overview of the tasks, which were executed by the Event and Logistics Coordinator Daniela Gentner in the realm of the Wikimedia Conference 2016 from the beginning of August 2015 to the end of July 2016. An overview of all work packages and activities can be found below.

The role of the Event and Logistics Coordinator was to successfully plan, organize, implement as well as to follow-up on the Wikimedia Conference and the fringe events such as the Pre-Conference Workshops on Program Design, Evaluation, and Community Learning, AffCom Meeting, WMF Board Meeting and Board Training Workshop.

From the kick-off to the final reporting, the Event and Logistics Coordinator was responsible for the management of the logistics around the conference, detailed planning and the liaison with the WMF travel department, the Program and Engagement Coordinator as well as external vendors. Communication management such as creating and updating Meta, sending information to participants and creating a conference guide were a crucial subject of the coordinator.

The Event and Logistics Coordinator also took care of the cost management, which encompassed planning on the budget, expenses tracking, processing invoices and budget reporting. Important key tasks also entailed participant management (inviting attendees, coordinating travel and hotel bookings, helping with visas and interacting with participants etc.) as well as the management of the venue and other service providers (research, inquiry to select appropriate vendors, contract negotiation, contracting and coordinating them before, during and after the event etc.).

Due to the general increase in participants (20,5%) and increase of participants in need of a visa, the management of participants was more intense in comparison to the last years. Fortunately, the Event and Logistics Coordinator was supported in the planning of the event from the beginning of March until May 2016 by Teele Vaalma, a member of the board of trustees of Wikimedia Estonia. WMDE’s main intention of having a “Visiting Wikimedian”, who supports the planning and implementation of the event, was to serve as a “learning partner” and to enhance the exchange within the Wikimedia movement. The idea is that the “Visiting Wikimedian” can apply the transferred knowledge to programs and processes in the home organization.

Last but not least it was of utmost importance for the event team to create a welcoming and pleasant atmosphere to ensure a great conference experience for all participants. Responding to their needs, caring about every question or problem and trying to solve them as good as possible was a crucial field of duty of the project partners.

To conclude, all activities were dedicated to facilitate the logistics behind the event and to support the program team and participants in the best manner, in order to enable them to fully immerse into the conference and to concentrate on the conference goals and topics.

Overview of Activities of the Event and Logistics Coordinator[edit]

Area Task (summarized)
Cost management Create budget plan
Process invoices, expenses tracking and cost control
Set up actual cost overview
Create invoice from WMDE to WMF
Location management Conference venue research and negotiation
Location contracting
Check technical & equipment as well as catering needs
Catering contracting
Create location signage concept
Create room plans & schedules
Set up / Dismantlement
Manage location and catering team on-site
Hotel Management Hotel research and quotations solicitation
Hotel negotiations
Hotel contracting
Hotel reservation for participants
Participant Management Set up concept and create registration form
Checking and managing incoming registrations
Adding participants on meta
Communicating with participants
Visa and insurance Management, creating and sending invitation letters
Participants support, registration on-site
Communication Management Creation and maintenance of meta page
Sending information and updates via mail to participants
Creation and administration of mailing list
Respond to individual needs and requirements of participants and other stakeholders
Create documents for on- site usage (signage, conference guide etc.)
Social Event Location scouting
Location booking
Brainstorming and preparing social activities
On-site management of participants and service providers

Further reading material on the conference[edit]

List of Participants
see here Wikimedia Conference 2016/Participants
Documentation and Follow-Up
An overview of the documentation of all sessions held at the Wikimedia Conference 2016, follow-ups and next steps for the main conference topics can be found here: Wikimedia Conference/Follow-Up
Further Impressions
You can find a current overview of all reports and blog posts at the Wikimedia Conference meta page, among them are:
Pictures of the Conference can be found on Commons
Category:Wikimedia Conference 2016
See here for twitter
Hashtag #wmcon and for our Twitter handle @wmcon

Lesson Learned[edit]

What lessons were learned that may help others succeed in similar projects? Consider the following questions and respond with 1 - 2 paragraphs.

Lessons learned related to program related aspects[edit]

What went well?

1. New program design process

A program along the needs, wishes and experiences of the participants: Thanks to our new program design process the selection of topics and the quality of the sessions could be improved, based on what participants wished to learn and discuss.

Based on our experiences from previous Wikimedia Conferences, participants’ feedback from 2015 and intensive discussions during Wikimania 2015, we have set up a new program design process creating a program along the needs, wishes and experiences of the participants. Ratings in the 2016 survey as well as feedback from our peers prove that it was a right decision.

In 2015, we also got the feedback that people wished more clearly divided tracks and/or sessions that were better targeted towards their audience. Thus, for the first time, we introduced clear tracks: The “How to move forward” track, the “Movement Impact” track and the “Capacity Building & Learning” track. This decision was well received, which was also reflected in our survey evaluation.

Additionally, the new program design process gave us the opportunity to experiment and test new formats in accordance to the sessions’ goals, e.g. the “Opening session for the ‘How to move forward’ track” was more than unusual, but absolutely adequate and fitting for its purpose. The “Impact working session” gave participants the opportunity to dive thoroughly into the topic of “Movement Impact”, instead of just scratching the edge in a 60 min session.

We have also incorporated feedback from previous years and extended the lightning talks. This session format was again very well received.

2. First outcomes of the Engagement Process

The task of the PEC is not only to create a good, meaningful program, but also to keep participants of the conference engaged afterwards. It takes a lot of time, patience and commitment and it’s a difficult process. However, after more than year since the Wikimedia Conference 2015, first actual results – like new cross-affiliate collaborations, new working groups, new training and learning materials – are visible (see the Impact section below).

The conference brings a diverse mix of people to one place: WMF staff, ED and Board of Trustees, board members of affiliate organizations, affiliate staff and volunteers. This mix of diversity is essential for a good and comprehensive program with benefits for all.

3. A forum for movement conversations and strategic discussions

With the 2016 edition of the Wikimedia Conference and its “How to move forward” track, we have provided a forum for movement conversations and strategic discussions. We are convinced that the Wikimedia Conference is the best place for Wikimedia affiliates and the WMF to have such conversations and discussions.

4. Diversity of participants

The conference brings a diverse mix of people to one place: WMF staff, ED and Board of Trustees, board members of affiliate organizations, affiliate staff and volunteers. These are by far not all relevant stakeholders in the Wikimedia movement, but relevant for the main topic of the Wikimedia Conference: the relationship and shared responsibilities between WMF and its affiliates and their contributions to the movement. We especially appreciate that WMF staff has recognized the importance of the conference and has sent more staff members from different teams and departments to Berlin than to former events.

5. Facilitated moments of sharing

The Wikimedia Conference is not only made for talking, working and thinking, but also to exchange ideas, start new collaborations and inspire yourself. We created and facilitated manifold moments of sharing to enhance that.

Only a safe space in a creative, trustful atmosphere enables a good, effective working environment that includes newbies and old hands alike. During the 2016 conference, we have focused on creating more moments of sharing and social exchange. One of these elements was a separate room that participants could book for meet-ups and group meetings on Saturday and Sunday. It worked out extraordinarily well, the room was practically booked out the whole time and people appreciated the offer of the room in the participants’ survey.

Other elements for creating facilitated moments of sharing were the so-called “Thematic Tables” on Friday evening in the WMDE office, where certain tables were assigned to specific topics, so people could approach others interested in these topics directly. Another tool was the specific conference Telegram messenger group we created. It was used extraordinarily well (around 90 participants used it) and gave also us organizers an easy way to communicate with many participants. The group was even used after the conference itself. Furthermore, we had the “letter box wall” in the conference location again – this year with photos of all participants, what helped to recognize the right person – and we also handed out event-branded business cards. The Organizational Profiles (which exist since 2013 at Wikimedia Conferences) were also printed again.

All these small elements were created to lower the barrier approaching other participants, to make it easier to exchange ideas and inspire everyone. We wanted to prove that even with a limited budget it’s easy to create a trustful and inspiring atmosphere by applying a lot of creativity.

6. Wikimedia Conference as a high quality conference

We are convinced that the Wikimedia Conference – being organized with a three-years-perspective – is reaching a new level of conference execution in the Wikimedia movement. Not only in terms of logistics, but also on the quality of the program. We are constantly improving and fine-tuning our “Program and Engagement Coordination” concept and are happy to share our learnings and experience, as e.g., in our recent presentation at Wikimania 2016 in Esino Lario.

What did not go well? What would you do differently if you planned a similar project?

1. Budget does not reflect movement growth

The WMF is constantly recognizing more affiliates, which is welcomed and leads to movement growth. As the Wikimedia Conference is the major platform for movement affiliates and a diversity of representatives’ roles (staff, board) is an essential success factor, we have to serve a growing number of participants every year. Our challenge here is that the budget for the conference hasn’t been increased since 2015. Restricting access for budget rather than for programmatic reasons is not the best approach in our view. Instead, we should strive to find a model that enables us to manage the growth and to ensure equal representation of all affiliate models.

2. Limits of the conference concept

The Wikimedia Conference is a working conference aimed for working, sharing experiences, learning and talking. We have the feeling that the number of participants for such a working conference is limited and cannot be scaled infinitely. We will have to re-think the concept of the Wikimedia Conference for 2018 and beyond and hope that we will get more clarity in the course of the movement strategy process.

3. A more participatory program process

We have introduced a new process of designing the program, coordinated by the Program and Engagement Coordinator, based on the inputs given in the registration form (survey). As mentioned above, this new process worked smoothly and got high approval in the participants’ feedback. It enabled us to create a program along the needs, wishes and experiences of the participants. However, critics came up that the process could be more participatory, as in creating a “Call for Submissions” or similar. For the next conference, we’d like to create the program in a similar way as in 2016, but creating additional small “windows of participation”, where participants could comment on and submit sessions for specific topics.

4. Insufficient differentiation between new and more experienced participants

The bigger the conference gets, the more diverse is the range of participants. This creates new challenges, as we have participants from the smallest user groups and the biggest chapters in one place, and sessions need to be targeted better for the specific audience. We have tried to solve this challenge by creating stricter thematic tracks in 2016 and by asking speakers to explicitly mention their target audience in the session description. For 2017, we aim to create “pathways” which guide specific participant groups through the program, e.g. “First-time participants with no experience in the Wikimedia movement at all” or “Simple APG grantees with interest in professionalizing their organization”.

5. Attendance of the Board of Trustees

We very much appreciate that we could welcome all members of the WMF Board of Trustees at the Wikimedia Conference, that they agreed to contribute to several sessions and actively participated in the program. In 2016, however, the Board Meeting overlapped with the first day of the Wikimedia Conference. This created the challenge that the the Board as well as the interim ED were not available for the opening day of the conference. It especially conflicted with our goal to use the first conference day to regain trust and establish a constructive working relationship between WMF and affiliates. In the end, we were able to design the program around this challenge, but it was not ideal. We are planning to work with the board and figure out what options there are to avoid such a situation in 2017.

6. Inviting candidates for the Affiliate-selected board seats (ASBS)

The Wikimedia Conference is also biannually the place to discuss the candidates (and the process itself) for the affiliate-selected board seats. In 2016, an unusually high number of people ran as candidates for these seats (10). Some of the candidates were present at the conference due to their status as affiliate's representatives, while others were not. This created an imbalance in the selection process, and some candidates criticized the fact. However, as the organizers of the conference, we did not have a mandate to decide on this matter, while the Election Facilitators do. Unfortunately, the Election Facilitators of the 2016 process did not tackle the issue. For the future, this option should be discussed in advance, when setting up the ASBS process.

Lessons learned related to logistical aspects[edit]

What went well?

Thanks to the agreement on organizing the conference three years in a row, we can learn and improve the conference from year to year.

1. Experience value through the organization of previous conferences

Having organized the Wikimedia Conference several years in a row, conducting surveys and evaluating them, helped to enhance the overall conference experience from year to year. By keeping continuously track of the lessons learned, successes and failures during the last years, the performance could be assessed, pitfalls could be avoided and improvements could be made. Particularly, the needs of the participants could be increasingly met and satisfied. Within the registration forms as well as surveys, which were conducted after each conference, attendees gave valuable input and feedback, which the organizing team tried to take into account and attempted to implement in the subsequent year. In general, the organizing team could increase its experience and got increasingly routine in planning and organizing the event from year to year.

2. Work organization and collaboration between project partners

A dedicated collaboration between project partners and clear division of work packages is a key component for organizing a successful conference. The Wikimedia Conference is hosted and organized in close cooperation with the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). Although the collaboration between the different project partners was satisfactory throughout all conference years, the cooperation for the conference 2016 went particularly smooth. This is due to accustomed processes and familiar ways of working together. By hosting a kick-off meeting with all project partners and defining a timeline, milestones, deadlines and responsibilities jointly, a good foundation for working together was laid. Being well informed about each other's remits and whom to contact for certain issues, facilitated the collaboration and communication enormously. Another advantage was that all project partners (e.g. travel team) have yearlong experience in their field of responsibility. By arranging conference calls at important stages of the project and by recording the tasks and goals in written, helped everyone to be on the same page, to meet deadlines and make the conference a success.

3. Early start of project planning

In comparison to the planning of the Wikimedia Conference 2015, the organizing team had a longer lead time for organizing this year’s conference. In this way the conference date and eligibility criteria could be announced very early and affiliates had more time to comply with the criteria. As the registration was opened at the beginning of December, participants in need of a visa had at least four months to apply for one.

On top of that, having determined the event date already 9 months in advance, ensured that the venue was still available on the desired date and that the hotel still had capacity for all participants.

Teele Vaalma (right) supported us a Visiting Wikimedian in organizing the Wikimedia Conference – her help and support was indispensable.

4. Visiting Wikimedian

This year the Wikimedia Conference organizing team was supported by Teele Vaalma, a board member of Wikimedia Estonia, in the planning, implementation and post processing of the event (from March to May). With the goal to learn how the Wikimedia Conference is planned and organized and to increase the experience in event management, WMDE was contacted by Teele Vaalma.

Hosting a Visiting Wikimedian was a pilot of our package of measures to enhance the exchange with the Wikimedia movement and, being a “learning partner”, support the relations with other Wikimedia affiliates. Creating synergies and exchanging experiences as well as knowledge within the movement is valuable and enriching. Many volunteers within the Wikimedia Movement are involved in organizing events and may have little experience in this field. Thus, WMDE considers it as valuable to share this knowledge, offer learning experiences and benefit from an outside perspective. Within a blog post Teele Vaalma shares her learnings and experience living abroad . General information on the Program Visiting Wikimedian and the further proceeding for the Wikimedia Conference 2017 can be found on Meta.

5. No-show of conference participants in need of a visa decreased

This year’s no-show rate due to visa issues was lower in comparison to the last year. By reminding the participants several times to apply for a visa and taking it as a prerequisite to inform the WMF travel team before the travel is booked, helped to avoid unnecessary costs. Moreover, by actively encouraging the participants to inform the Logistics Coordinator if they had issues with the visa application enabled to support the particular person better.

The close collaboration with the Foreign Office in Berlin was also very valuable for solving visa issues. The Foreign Office served as an intermediary between WMDE, the participants and the corresponding consulates/embassies. Primarily, the Event and Logistics Coordinator informed the Office about the upcoming event and the fact that participants will request for a Schengen visa in their country of origin. By providing the Foreign Office with the invitation letter and a list of participants, they could forward the list and documents to the consulates/embassies to confirm the existence of the event and to announce that participants will apply for a visa. On top of that, WMDE could consult the Foreign Office in case of visa related questions or specific cases that occurred during the visa application process of a particular participant.

The Wikimedia Conference became a platform for diverse side-events, like the meeting of the Board of Trustees, of the AffCom, but also pre-conference workshops on Board Trainings and Learning, Programs and Evaluation.
The Affiliations Committee also used the Wikimedia Conference as place to hold its annual meeting

6. Seizing the Wikimedia Conference platform for several side events

Also this year, the Wikimedia Conference served as a crucial platform for different side events and event formats (from Pre-Conference Workshops on Program Design, Evaluation, and Community Learning, Board training workshop, AffCom Meeting, WMF Board meeting, Communications meeting, thematic/regional/language-specific meetups to WikiDojo). Some meetups were planned and announced a few month in advance, some were spontaneously arranged during the conference days (see also the next section). Thanks to the flexibility of the conference venue and the availability of meeting rooms at the WMDE office, most of the spontaneously arranged events could be hosted without any hassle or extra costs.

As most of the affiliates representatives meet each other only 1-2 times a year, it is comprehensible that the time spent together is seized entirely. On top of that, having side events during WMCON diminishes travel time and costs.

7. Provision of a meeting space for attendees at the conference venue

From the past conferences, the organizing team learned that participants often request rooms to arrange closed and open meetings. This year, a meeting room was arranged and offered at the conference venue. Attendees could reserve a time slot for the meeting room at the registration desk and publish the meeting in an offline schedule. The meeting room option was quite well used and received by the participants. The demand for the meeting space was quite high and another room would have been perfect to completely fulfil all requested needs (due to the limited space at Tagesspiegel this was not possible).

8. Provision of work stations for attendees at the conference venue

While attending the Wikimedia Conference, some participants still have to follow their work or other obligations. As it is quite hard to work concentrated or even have virtual meetings within the session rooms or in the lounge area, a room with work stations was offered. The workstation was equipped with tables, chairs as well as power strips and could be used very flexibly (no reservations were necessary, offered space for 15 people at a time).

9. Extending lunch break

This year the conference venue, in particular the catering area, reached its capacity limit. In view of this issue, the organizing team intended to alleviate the situation (avoid long queues at buffet) by extending the lunch break to 1.5 hours (before only 1 hour) and by expanding the lunch area space (outside tables in the courtyard of Tagesspiegel).

10. Lounge area at the conference venue to foster social interaction

This year the organizing team intended to provide more space and possibilities for casual conversations as well as relaxation at the conference venue, which were open to all participants. Besides having a lounge with bean bags and stools, ale benches were put up in the courtyard of the venue. Attendees not only used this area for sitting during lunch, but also for informal meetings. Thus, social interaction was increasingly enhanced.

What did not go well? What would you do differently if you planned a similar project?

1. Increased work load

The Wikimedia movement grows in scope and size. Consequently, the WMCON participant number and the interest to take part in it increases from year to year. WMDE embraces this growth and is happy that the WMCON is well attended. In terms of budget and organizational effort this growth has significant impact. Participant management plays a central role for the Event and Logistics Coordinator and is a quite time intensive task. Particularly, affiliates without funding and participants in need of a visa require one-on-one support (especially 1-2 months before the conference). In view of this increase, it is especially not manageable to support the participants and to handle all other logistical aspects on the same quality level without any additional personnel. Luckily, the Event and Logistic Coordinator was supported by the “Visiting Wikimedian”, Teele Valma, this year. Also for the next year, this kind of support is desirable to handle the growth.

2. Budget does not include WMDE’s overhead and support costs

The budget of the Wikimedia Conference 2016 only covers the pure costs for the logistics and the program. Factors like controlling, evaluation, our office as the venue (for the dinner snack) as well as the positions of Wenke Storn and Nicole Ebber are not included in the budget. In our APG proposals we for example calculate the budget with an overhead rate of 28%. We understand our work as a service for the whole Wikimedia movement and generously entered this as an in-kind donation. For future conferences, we would like to re-enter the conversation and have at least some of the costs included in the budget.

3. Combined registration and process for pre-conference workshop and conference

As a lesson learned from the last conference, the registration for the Wikimedia Conference and the Pre-Conference Workshops on Program Design, Evaluation, and Community Learning was combined. On the one hand, this was a major improvement in comparison to last year in terms of workload. On the other hand, two points for improvement can be mentioned:

For some participants it was not clear who is organizing the Pre-Conference Workshop (assumed that it was organized by WMDE) and how the participation selection process was done. Thus, they often addressed questions to the WMCON organizing team, which could not be answered. For the next time, it would be good to communicate more clearly the responsibilities.

Participants of the pre-conference workshop are eligible to arrive earlier than WMCON participants. As the WMF travel team booked some flights before the selection of pre-conference participants took place, some non-pre-conference participants were booked to arrive earlier than their accommodation costs would have been covered. Thus, extra costs were incurred. For next year, the list of registered participants should be tagged with instructions on the flight booking status to avoid this incident.

4. WiFi

Offering WiFi access at events is a must. In general, but especially for Wikimedia events, a good WiFi connection is essential to keep participants satisfied and enable them to work or edit. Most of the attendees try to connect with multiple devices at the same time, want to upload and download a lot of data, do video calls, etc. and consequently enough bandwidth and enough access points are necessary. The WMCON organizing team was well aware of this fact and made the essential inquiry for WiFi at the conference venue. However, WMCON participants had problems accessing the WiFi or were disappointed about the connection speed. For the next year, extra WiFi costs need to be budgeted to anticipate the above mentioned issues.

5. Pocket program schedule

Although we had a program schedule displayed within the registration area, provided program printouts in A4 at the registration desk and published the program on meta as well as created a mobile program app, several participants requested for a pocket program schedule. The WMCON organizing team will keep this feedback in mind and think about a pocket program schedule for WMCON17.

Project goal and measures of success[edit]

This section should reference the project goals and measures of success described in the approved grant submission. See your grant proposal to review the goals and metrics listed in the approved submission.

Project goal[edit]

Provide the project goal here.

We are convinced – based on our metrics and stories told by the participants – that we achieved our goal: to make the conference great again!

Over the last years, a typical Wikimedia Conference proceeded like this: A program was created, participants arrived rather unprepared at the conference, presented and discussed important issues for three days and then left on Sunday. After the conference, the different strands of ideas, topics and conversations were not taken up, no one felt responsible to develop these strands any further; at least not in the open or in collaboration with others. Overall, a coordinated, outcome-driven approach was sorely missing. Only when it was time for the next conference, topics were brought up again, but mainly overshadowed by logistical discussions around venue, host, or color of the bikeshed. The Wikimedia Conference is not the only conference that faces these issues: Keeping the attention and motivation for events and topics high is quite a common challenge within and outside the movement.

In early 2015, WMDE and WMF agreed on hosting the Wikimedia Conference for at least three years (2015-2017) in Berlin. This gives us the opportunity to organize the conferences with a long-term perspective regarding logistics and program, with specific goals and with proper involvement of all affected parties. Wikimedia Deutschland is taking the lead in the program design process. Both, the creation of an outcome oriented and productive program as well as facilitating an efficient engagement process pursues our goal to make the Wikimedia Conference a productive and sustainable event, well embedded in the Wikimedia movement. The close collaboration with the WMF’s Community Engagement teams throughout the Program Design Process as well as their participation in the conference is also key for a successful WMCON. With the aim to make the conference more sustainable, the Program and Engagement Coordinator as well as the Event and Logistics Coordinator plan to establish learning patterns and be consultants for other movement events, because we strongly believe in the power of being learning partners in the movement.

Did you achieve your project goal? How do you know your goal was achieved? Please answer in 1 - 2 paragraphs.

Based on our experiences, the feedback from participants, affiliates and partners, we did achieve the main goal of the Wikimedia Conference: make it more productive and outcome-oriented. As we can see in the participants’ feedback, participants approved the new program design process, which brought a better selection of topics, more applicable knowledge and qualitatively better sessions. People saw and agreed that next steps were defined and follow-up work will be done.

On the logistics’s side, we have received highest ratings again. Again, thanks to the tremendous efforts of our Event Team, we achieved to organize the Wikimedia Conference in the same venue and accommodate the participants in the same hotel as we did in the previous years. The Event Team even topped that by organizing the Wikimedia Conference with the same budget as in 2015, but with around 40 participants more.

For the first time, we can also see first results of the engagement part of the Wikimedia Conference. Following up the work since May 2015, several initiatives were started, outcomes documented and groups founded. A group on partnerships and resource development was founded, filed a survey among the Wikimedia Chapters and is now working on further learning material around partnerships. The Communications Resource Center on Meta, initiated by Michael Jahn (WMDE), was taken over by WMF’s Communication team and is now to be developed into more movement-wide communications work. The duett of Frans Grijsenhout (chair of WMNL) and Tim Moritz Hector (chair of WMDE) organized a Board training workshop as a pre-conference event at the Wikimedia Conference 2016 and published recently first learning material for Affiliate Board members. Long story short: With the support of the Program and Engagement Coordinator, for the first outcomes between conferences are documented, supported and expanded. This has never been done before.

Although the process is sometimes slower than expected and still in an experimental stage, we are happy to see the first engagement results and will work on further outcomes together with the participants of the Wikimedia Conference 2016.

Measures of success[edit]

List the measures of success exactly as provided in the approved grant submission, and evaluate your project according to each measure listed there.
Please see also the evaluation of the participants' survey
Overall, the conference received better results ..
than 2015 and 2014 (see the evaluation for 2014 and 2015)
General assessment: 67 % excellent, 32 % good, 0 % poor, 1 % very poor (2015: 57 % excellent, 40 % good, 2 % poor, 1 % very poor)
# Measure (as proposed in the grant) Results Compliance
1 80% of participants approved that the conference improved my understanding of impact in the context of the Wikimedia movement 31 % strongly agree, 55 % agree ( = 86 %) Yes
2 80% of participants approved that the conference provided applicable knowledge and improved capacities 45 % strongly agree, 46 % agree ( = 91 %) Yes
3 80% of participants approved that the conference made satisfactorily clear the significance of sharing and collaboration in the Wikimedia movement 60 % strongly agree, 35 % agree ( = 95 %) Yes
4 80% of participants were satisfied with selection of topics 39 % strongly agree, 54 % agree ( = 93 %) Yes
5 80% of participants were satisfied with quality of contributions 38 % strongly agree, 54 % agree ( = 92 %) Yes
6 80% of participants were satisfied with communication regarding the program design process before conference 46 % strongly agree, 41 % agree ( = 87 %) Yes
7 40% of the 2016 conference participants engage in the structured follow-up process 12 months after the conference. Engaging means participation in working groups, discussions, special events etc. As of July 30, 14 % of the 2016 conference participants engaged in the structured follow-up process. On track
8 30% of people involved in the structured follow-up process are from outside the group of WMCON 2016 participants. As of July 30, 51 % of the people involved in the structured follow-up process are from outside the group of WMCON 2016 participants. This high percentage is a consequence of the diverse audience of the WMCON Follow-Up Day and might likely decrease in the following months. On track
9 For Wikimedia Conference 2016: minimum 50% of the 2016 program activities pursue major topics of the 2015 conference or build upon related outcomes/ follow-up work of the 2015 conference.

(Same as #19 below in the second table)

WMCON 2016 had 28 programmatic sessions (ignoring Openings, Wrap-Ups and Lightning Talks). 18 sessions build upon 2015’s conference major topics or build upon related outcomes/ follow-up work of the 2015 conference. The other 10 sessions (like the 2 GLAM sessions) had no precedent in the previous conference, for different reasons. Yes
10 At the 2016 conference, a minimum of 80% of the participants which have also attended the 2015 conference report that the 2015 conference led to tangible outcomes for their work. 32 % strongly agree, 54 % agree ( = 86 %) Yes
11 50% of the 2016 conference topics lead to concrete outcomes (e.g. documented next steps or wrap ups, learning patterns, established working groups, continued conversations, joined activities, binding decisions) – either at the conference itself or between the 2016 and 2017 conferences n/a
12 Topics of the Wikimedia Conference have a continuance at the Wikimania in a dedicated track or space (as qualified by dedicated Wikimania sessions, participation of 2016 conference participants at the dedicated sessions, etc.); this may be applied to other subsequent conferences as well. During the pre-conference of Wikimania 2016, we organized the WMCON Follow-Up Day. Yes
13 At least two thematic ambassadors (or members of their initiatives) of the follow-up process participate in a regional conference (IberoConf, CEE Meeting, WikiArabia) as multipliers for the WMCON topics. WikiArabia: 0 (due to the limits of the program); CEE Meeting: tbd; WikiIndaba: tbd; IberoConf: tbd n/a
14 At least two shared learning documents created by WMDE during the organization of the Wikimedia Conference were applied by organizers of other Wikimedia movement events (as qualified by mentions in their reports, documented communication or direct feedback). n/a
15 80 % of the participants could satisfactory seize the conference to: share knowledge with other Wikimedians 61 % strongly agree, 38 % agree ( = 99 %) Yes
16 80 % of the participants could satisfactory seize the conference to: gain knowledge from other Wikimedians 64 % strongly agree, 35 % agree ( = 99 %) Yes
17 80 % of the participants could satisfactory seize the conference to: better understanding of each other's views 52 % strongly agree, 42 % agree ( = 94 %) Yes
18 85% of participants were satisfied with: communication support from organizers before the conference

(Question widened in the survey)

68 % strongly agree, 31 % agree ( = 99 %) Yes
19 85% of participants were satisfied with: support from organizers during the conference 78 % strongly agree, 22 % agree ( = 100 %) Yes
20 85% of participants were satisfied with: visa service 63 % strongly agree, 32 % agree ( = 95 %) Yes
21 85% of participants were satisfied with: conference venue 64 % strongly agree, 33 % agree ( = 97 %) Yes
22 85% of participants were satisfied with: accommodation 68 % strongly agree, 28 % agree ( = 96 %) Yes
23 85% of participants were satisfied with: social events 50 % strongly agree, 46 % agree ( = 96 %) Yes

From 2015’s Wikimedia Conference grant (see the 2015 grant proposal, the 1st and the 2nd grant report)

# Measure (as proposed in the grant) Results Compliance
17 30% of the 2015 conference participants engage in the structured follow-up process 6 months after the conference. Engaging means participation in working groups, discussions, special events etc. Around 26 % of the WMCON participants took part in the follow-up process as of October 1, 2015. As of April 1, 2016 around 32 % of the WMCON participants took part in the follow-up process. Yes, but not achieved in the first 6 months.
19 For Wikimedia Conference 2016: minimum 50% of the 2016 program activities pursue major topics of the 2015 conference or build upon related outcomes/ follow-up work of the 2015 conference.
(Same as #9 above)
WMCON 2016 had 28 programmatic sessions (ignoring Openings, Wrap-Ups and Lightning Talks). 18 sessions build upon 2015’s conference major topics or build upon related outcomes/ follow-up work of the 2015 conference. The other 10 sessions (like the 2 GLAM sessions) had no precedent in the previous conference, for different reasons. Yes
21 At the 2016 conference minimum 80% of participants which have also attended the 2015 conference report that the 2015 conference led to tangible outcomes for their work. 32 % strongly agree, 54 % agree ( = 86%) Yes

Provide an overall assessment of how your project went according to these measures.

The Wikimedia Conference was a great success thanks to the wonderful and great organizing team (from left to right): Alice Körner, Wenke Storn, Daniela Gentner, Teele Vaalma, Cornelius Kibelka and Nicole Ebber.

Following our measures of success, the Wikimedia Conference was entirely successful, even exceeding our expectations. As in 2014 and 2015, especially the metrics for the logistics of the conference received high ratings, again exceeding those from the past two years. Actually, we are proud to say that on the logistics part of the conference it’s hardly possible to achieve better ratings.

On the program side, we are also glad to say, that we have achieved (partially) better ratings than in 2015 (like on “reaching the understanding of a shared future of the movement”, “clear next steps and outcomes” and “the overall scope and selection of topics”). When looking at the good results one also has to take into consideration that we have taken risks, were bold and have experimented with the formats and a new process (see the “Activities” part) and, following the results of the participants’ survey, the conference participants have appreciated these experiments.

Regarding the program and engagement part certain measures are yet not due to be measured (11, 13, 14), while other measures are on track but not fully achieved yet and have to be re-considered later (7, 8).

If you were to plan a similar project, would you measure it differently? If yes, please explain how.

Generally, we are convinced to have chosen a good mix of quantitative and qualitative metrics, which enabled us to actually see if our project was successful or not. For the next Wikimedia Conference, we would use the same or similar metrics, especially to have comparable results. Regarding the program-related metrics the actual wording may change, as they depend on the actual program of the conference.


This section ties this project to Wikimedia's broader goals, and shows what the project accomplished.

What impact did this project have on WMF's mission and the strategic goals? Please answer in 1 -2 paragraphs and include specific measures of impact such as the number of readers or editors reached by a particular project, or the number of articles edited or improved.

  • Stabilize infrastructure
  • Increase participation
  • Improve quality
  • Increase reach
  • Encourage innovation

Generally, we are convinced that the impact of such a project like the Wikimedia Conference can only be measured and explained in the long run, not already 90 days after the conference has ended. Additionally, the Wikimedia Conference doesn’t influence the Wikimedia projects directly – as “Wikimedia’s strategic goals” might suggest – but influences the work of the Wikimedia organizations on a more meta level. However, we anticipate good outcomes of the 2016 conference and its general impact for next year.

One of the goals of the Wikimedia Conference 2016 was to start a healing process after WMF’s leadership crisis in the last year and re-gaining trust into the Board of Trustees and we tried to facilitate this, e.g. by designing a dedicated track. We think that in this aspect, the conference succeeded. Many participants perceived the conference as a turning point in the relations between the Wikimedia affiliates and the Wikimedia Foundation. The welcoming, open, embracing leadership style of Katherine Maher as well as the open word of members of the Board of Trustees were huge assets to start a healing process.

On a more project-specific level, many participants perceive(d) the conference as the perfect place of exchanging ideas, start new collaborations and get inspired – basically encouraging innovation at a broader level. In our feedback survey, 76 participants could name initiatives or projects they had started at the Wikimedia Conference 2016. We are eager to see the outcomes in the upcoming year.

As we see the Wikimedia Conference 2015–2017 as a series of conference, we’d like to take a brief look on the outcomes of the Wikimedia Conference 2015. You can find more details on the newly created (and updated) Follow-Up page, which serves for the 2015, 2016 and 2017 conferences. In the 2016 survey, 86 % of all participants (59 participants), that had also attended the 2015 conference, stated that the Wikimedia Conference 2015 led to tangible outcomes. Two thirds of them could name initiatives they have pursued. The initiatives were based in the areas of “Movement policies / movement relations”, “Working on specific projects / new ideas“, “Peer-to-peer support”, “Regional cooperations”, “Internal capacity building” and “Learning initiatives”.

Furthermore, we can name several important outcomes:

  • Based on the efforts of the Wikimedia Conference 2015 and 2016, Michael Jahn organized a "Communications Hackathon" during the pre-conference of Wikimania 2016.
    With the support of the PEC, Anne-Laure Prévost (Wikimédia France), John Andersson (Wikimedia Sverige) and Nikki Zeuner (Wikimedia Deutschland) set up a community of practice around Partnerships & Resource Development. In fall 2015, they created a survey on partnerships and external fundraising and got extensive feedback and answers from 23 Wikimedia Chapters. Based on these inputs, the group is working on learning material for 2017. At Wikimania 2016, the group had a meeting, additionally the group has regular hangouts with further participants (Sydney Poore, Alex Stinson).
  • At the Wikimedia Conference 2015, Michael Jahn (Head of Communications at Wikimedia Deutschland) held a session on Communications together with Katherine Maher (then Head of Communications at WMF) and Juliet Barbara (then Senior Manager of Communications at WMF). As a outcome of the session, Michael created the first learning material on communications on Meta. With the hiring of Greg Varnum (Communications Strategist, WMF) the material page got extended and was renamed to “Communications Resource Center”. Since the hiring of more staff in the WMF Communications team, Wikimedia affiliates perceive the team’s work much more towards the Wikimedia movement. The two sessions on Communications at the Wikimedia Conference 2016 by Jeff Elder and Greg Varnum were also a proof of that. After the Wikimedia Conference 2016, Jeff Elder created a Facebook group called “Wikimedia Foundation social media hub”, where movement-wide social media work is coordinated. At Wikimania 2016, Michael Jahn and Jan Apel organized a whole day “Communications Hackathon” to expand the collaboration on Communications topics in the Wikimedia movement.
  • Since the Wikimedia Conference 2015, Frans Grijsenhout (chair of Wikimedia Nederland) and Tim Moritz Hector (chair of Wikimedia Deutschland) were gathering interested people on working around Board trainings. With the extensive support of the PEC, both organized two pre-conference days for board members of Wikimedia affiliates at the Wikimedia Conference 2016. Additionally, Frans held a session on strategy processes together with Mattias Blomgren (Wikimedia Sverige). Based on the pre-conference days and the strategies session, Frans and Tim have published first learning material on Board Member Support.
  • Raimund Liebert (Wikimedia Österreich) and Veronika Krämer (Wikimedia Deutschland) holding a session on Volunteer Support during the Wikimedia Conference 2016
    The work on Public Policy, mainly led by Dimi Dimitrov, Wikimedian in Brussels, is also one of the topics of the Wikimedia Conference 2015. The WMCON 2015 and 2016 and the Follow-Up Days 2015 and 2016 helped Dimi to keep the conversation around public policy issues ongoing, relevant for communities in EU member states (especially on Freedom of Panorama).
  • The Volunteer Supporters Network, mainly consisting of Muriel Straub (Wikimedia CH), Raimund Liebert (Wikimedia Österreich) and Veronika Krämer (Wikimedia Deutschland) have established very good working relations since the Wikimedia Conference 2015. Even if it was not possible to incorporate other active members (as the position of volunteer supporters doesn’t exist in that way in other Wikimedia affiliates), the group worked on creating new learning material (I, II, III) and are now perceived as approachable for volunteer support related issues in the Wikimedia movement.
  • For several years, WMDE leadership, especially Nicole Ebber as the adviser on International Relations, has been lobbying affiliates and WMF to clarify their relationship as well as roles and shared responsibilities. With the comprehensive study of the Chapters Dialogue and presentation of the insights at WMCON 2014, the groundwork for a such a strategy was created. In addition to the Chapters Dialogue sessions in 2013 and 2014, this work was reflected, among others, in the “What could local organisations bring to the movement?” session (at WMCON 2015), Lila’s talk (WMCON 2015), Future roles of affiliates and WMF session (WMCON Follow-Up Day 2015) and Affiliates Strategy session (WMCON Follow-Up Day 2016). The new WMF leadership – Board and ED – has now announced (Wikimania video, Metrics meeting video June, Metrics slides June) to finally initiate a movement-wide strategy process for 2016/2017 to get the clarity that is so crucial for the movement to successfully strive for free knowledge.

In summary, the Wikimedia Conference has grown to become the place for exchange, collaboration and inspiration among WMF and its affiliates. The conference has reached a level where it can catalyze projects, groups and initiatives in the Wikimedia movement. The approach to host the conference for three years in a row has proven to have an outstanding value for the movement in terms of productivity, sustainability and innovation. We are looking forward to achieving similar outcomes over the next year and lay the ground for the Wikimedia organizations and groups to shape our future together.

Reporting and documentation of expenditures[edit]

This section describes the grant's use of funds


Did you send documentation of all expenses paid with grant funds to grants at wikimedia dot org, according to the guidelines here? Answer "Yes" or "No".


Please list all project expenses in a table here, with descriptions and dates. Review the instructions here.
These expenses should be listed in the same format as the budget table in your approved submission so that anyone reading this report may be able to easily compare budgeted vs. actual expenses.
Note that variances in the project budget over 10% per expense category must be approved in advance by WMF Grants Program staff. For all other variances, please provide an explanation in the table below.

Please find here the documentation of expenses:

Cost Category Category Description Estimated Costs Actual Costs Difference: Estimated Costs – Actual Costs % of Budget Spent Comment
Conference Costs
Conference venue 5 days conference rooms, WIFI, technical equipment & set-up, costs for Event Manager of venue €11,000.00 €13,084.05 – €2,084.05 118.95% Compared to the previous years Tagesspiegel did not invoice us for extra personell costs (billing sum conformed with offer sum). Taking this way of billing for granted, WMDE did not expect that personell costs will be invoiced on top this year. For this reason the actual costs exceed the estimated costs. The cost overruns can be covered by the extra costs (budget buffer) and cost savings.
Conference catering price included all day beverage flat rate, 2 coffeebreaks, lunch, incl. kosher food €18,660.00 €18,104.70 €555.30 97.02%
Facilitators program production, speaker briefing, conference facilitation €10,000.00 €8,698.60 €1,301.40 86.99%
TOTAL Conference Costs €39,660.00 €39,887.35 - €227.35 100.57%
Dinner Snack Costs (3 nights at WMDE office)
Catering warm buffet (incl. kosher/halal) at WDME office three evenings €4,820.00 €3,999.61 820.39 82.98%
Beverages non-alcoholic as well as alcoholic beverage flatrate €2,750.00 €2,757.55 – €7.55 100.27%
On-site support staff on site support for dinner snacks €810.00 €825.00 – €15.00 101.85%
Others ale benches for participants to sit in our event space and extra beverage refrigerator had to be rented as WMDE office is not equipped for total participant number €650.00 €446.36 €203.64 68.67%
TOTAL Dinner Snack Costs (3 nights at WMDE office) €9,030.00 €8,028.52 €1,001.48 88.91%
Social Event Cost (1 night outside WMDE office)
Catering and Beverages warm dinner at HomeBase Lounge and beverage flat rate €7,000.00 €6,008.25 €991.75 85.83%
DJ €300.00 €200.00 €100.00 66.67%
Transport €1,200.00 €0,00 €1,200.00 0.00%
Others costs for paper plates, napkins and birthday presents €500.00 €117.76 €382.24 23.55% no other costs were occured, material from WMDE stock was used
TOTAL Social Event Cost (1 night outside WMDE office) €9,000.00 €6,326.01 €2,673.99 70.29%
Travel & Transport Costs On-Site
Travel Costs Volunteers/ Facilitators transport costs for 2 volunteers, 1 facilitator €500.00 €152.45 €347.55 30.49%
Public Transport Ticket public transport tickets for participants and sightseeing tour €1000.00 €721.40 €278.60 72.41%
Transport costs material transport plus quick transfers of organizing team €400.00 €433.25 – €33.25 108.31%
TOTAL Travel & Transport Costs On-Site €1,900.00 €1,307.10 €592.90 68.79%
Communication Costs
Conference Guide printing costs for conference guide €440.00 €178.50 €261.50 40.57%
Sending Visa Documents €2,400.00 €343.69 €2,056,31 14.32%
Visa Cost Reimbursement reimbursement visa costs for 15 participants €1,750.00 €1,651.95 – €98.05 94.40%
Lanyards production costs for 240 lanyards €345.00 €525.50 – €180.50 152.32%
Photographer €1,500.00 €1,190.00 €310.00 79.33%
Others poster printing  €100.00 €248.40 – €148.40 248.40%
TOTAL Communication Costs €6,535.00 €4,138.04 €2,396.96 63.32%
Staff & Office Costs
Event Management equivalent of 1 FTE, 6 months (Jan- June) €18,000.00 €18,000.00 €0 100%
Program & Engagement Coordinator (incl. travel costs) equivalent of 0,8 FTE, 12 months + 2 bridge months (Oct-Nov 2015; Dec 2015-Nov 2016), incl. travel costs to other events and project management support €38,700.00 €38,700.00 €0 100%
TOTAL Staff & Office Costs €56,700.00 €56,700.00 €56,700.00 100%
Accommodation Costs1
Accommodation Costs represents the costs for 73 participants (that needed funding), 3 speakers, 1 volunteer, 1 facilitator - breakfast and WIFI included €20,340.00 €17,712.23 €2,627.77 87.08%
TOTAL Accommodation Costs €20,340.00 €17,712.23 €2,627.77 87.08%
Extra Costs
Cash withdrawl fee €2.000.00 €5.99
TOTAL Extra Costs €2.000.00 €5.99 1,994.01 0.30%
TOTAL COSTS €145,165.00 €134,105.24 €11,059.76 92.38%


1 The shown accommodation and travel costs mainly represent the costs of the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations & user groups) that needed WMCON funding. The costs do not include the travel and accommodation costs of WMF Board, WMF staff, AffCom and FDC members.

Total project budget (from your approved grant submission)
Total amount requested from WMF (from your approved grant submission)
Total amount spent on this project (this total should be the total calculated from the table above)
Total amount of WMF grant funds spent on this project (this total will be the same as the total amount spent if the WMF grant is your only funding source)
Are there additional sources of revenue that funded any part of this project? List them here.

Remaining funds[edit]

Are there any grant funds remaining?
Please list the total amount (specify currency) remaining here. (This is the amount you did not use, or the amount you still have after completing your grant.)
Please be aware that WMDE did not receive the requested amount at the beginning of the project and that all costs incurred were advanced by WMDE. After the completion of the project, one final invoice, listing the total costs of the project, was sent to WMF. Thus, the amount of €11,059.76 is not actually a remaining fund but represents the difference between the estimated and actual costs.
If funds are remaining they must be returned to WMF, reallocated to mission-aligned activities, or applied to another approved grant.
Please state here if you intend to return unused funds to WMF, submit a request for reallocation, or submit a new grant request, and then follow the instructions on your approved grant submission.