Wikimedia Sverige/Protokoll 2007-11-26/Bilaga 1

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

Enkät till Lokala stödföreningar - svar från Wikimedia Sverige[edit]

Denna enkät har initierats av WMF board för att få en tydligare bild av statusen på de olika lokala stödföreningarna. Enkäten har av Wikimedia Sverige besvarats av Anders Wennersten och Lennart Guldbrandsson och stämts av i styreslen.


Deadline for filling the online form of this survey is 30th of November, 23:59 UTC.

Notes
  • IMPORTANT: The word chapter in this survey is used with the definition that is closest to the chapters agreement definition, ie. Wikimedia chapters are independent organisations which operate in a specific geographical region and support the aims of the Wikimedia Foundation.
  • If anything is unclear, please do not hesitate to ask me about it (dmenard(_AT_)wikimedia.org).
  • Please be as concise as possible. Especially in the write-in, open-ended fields, make sure to read the question carefully and answer accordingly.

Best,

Delphine

Introduction[edit]

  • Official registered name(s) of your organisation (in your own language if applicable): WMF Sverige, will be changed after approval.
  • Name of your organisation in latin script (Wikimedia XXX): Wikimedia Sverige
  • Contact person for this survey
    • First name: Lennart
    • Name: Guldbrandsson
    • email: l_guldbrandsson@hotmail.com

History[edit]

This section is about the history of your chapter

  • Date of founding (The day your chapter became an organisation - in some countries it might differ from the day of official registration in the country - Approximate date is ok if you don't have at hand)
    • 2007-10-20 (formally 2007-08-12)
  • Date of registration with the authorities of your country (if different from above) (Approximate date is ok if you don't have it at hand)
    • 2007-08-24
  • Number of founding members (Can be: founding members, members who participated actively in creating the chapter. This is just to have an idea of whether the chapter was the work of one individual or of a huge group)
    • 5 in core group + 5 active supporters outside core group
  • Number of months of activity to prepare the chapter prior to founding (This should include how long the chapter idea has been discussed until it has actually happened)
    • 3
  • Please list 3 difficulties you encountered prior to founding and explain why you found them to be difficulties
    • The forming of the core team that did the concrete preparing. How to get the best team together when there is no one that has the role to define such a team
    • The lack of money. You need money already in the preparation phase
    • The need to use two names for the organization, the coming one (Wikimedia Sverige) and the early registered one (WMF Sverige). It was potentially bewildering to the supporters to use two names.
  • Please list 3 difficulties you encountered post founding and explain why you found them to be difficulties
    • To need to work with two names even if less bewildering than before founding. It left some unclarities with banks etc, even if not with supporters.
    • Limited cash at start. Much is needed to be done, posters, brochures etc which cost money.
    • Much to do in short time. We want as soon as possible to be a full fledge organization, but it is a lot of nitty gritty details that has to be resolved

Present status[edit]

This section is about the description of your chapter and its present status

  • Does your chapter's territory include more than one language: yes/no (Or, rephrased differently, would your chapter be a logical organisational contact point for more than one language community?)
    • No
    • if yes, please list the main languages (open ended write-in)
  • Is your chapter a member organisation?: yes/no
    • Yes
    • If yes, how many members does your chapter have?: 72 members
  • Whether yes or no to the above, please list and explain the reasons/advantages/disadvantages of this status (Here we're trying to understand if your organisation is/isn't a member organisation by choice, by reason, by necessity and what advantages/disadvantages are brought about with your actual status).
    • In Sweden both tradition, law etc make it natural to be a non-profit member organisation
  • Is your board elected?: yes/no
    • Yes
    • If yes, by whom: By the general assembly at the statuary meeting.(>40 persons eligible to vote)
  • Is your chapter a not-for-profit organsation?: yes/no (This refers to either a legal status or a state of mind --if the legal status does not exist in your country--, in short, is your chapter here to make lots of money or to pursue not-for -profit goals)
    • Non-profit
  • Whether yes or no to the above, please list and explain the reasons/advantages/disadvantages of this status (Here we're trying to understand if your organisation is/isn't a not-for-profit by choice, by reason, by necessity and what advantages/disadvantages are brought about with your actual status).
    • The whole set up in Sweden for profit and non-profit is all different, and a set up for a profit organization would not only be a burden and problem it would also hinder the necessary support from the user community
  • Does your organisation benefit from tax-deductibility in your country?: yes/no (This refers to a legal status)
    • Yes, a non-profit organisation has very generous rules
  • Whether yes or no to the above, please list and explain the reasons/advantages/disadvantages of this status (Here we're trying to understand if your organisation provides/does not provide tax-deductibility by choice, by reason, by necessity and what advantages/disadvantages are brought about with your actual status).
    • See answer above

Activities[edit]

Chapter[edit]

This section is about the activities your chapter engages into.

  • Do you, as a chapter organization, currently participate in the following activities? (check any that apply and comment in the appropriate field)
    • Public outreach (advocacy)[1]: yes/no
      • WMSE:Yes
      • Comment
      • WMSE:Several a month, very strong positive feedback
    • Volunteer coordination: yes/no
      • WMSE:Just starting
      • Comment
    • Partnerships [2]: yes/no
      • WMSE:Just starting
      • Comment
    • Grants development: yes/no
      • WMSE:No
      • Comment
    • Media handling and communications [3]: yes/no
      • WMSE:Yes
      • Comment
      • WMSE::A couple of Interviews a month
    • Business development: yes/no
      • WMSE:Just started to look into
      • Comment
    • Fundraising: yes/no
      • WMSE:Yes
      • Comment
      • WMSE:we are learning from our first major donorcase
    • Technical work: yes/no
      • WMSE:No
      • Comment
    • Software development: yes/no
      • WMSE:Supporting some related to Wikipedia
      • Comment
    • Other activities (open-ended write-in)
      • Comment
      • WMSE:Supporting translation of pages from WMF
  • Related to your activities, do you do/have the following things?
    • Technical work: Do you own technical equipment?
      • WMSE:No
    • Software development: Do you help in the development of MediaWiki?
      • WMSE:No:
    • Software development: Do you help in the development of other software?
      • WMSE::No
    • Legal activities: Do you have access to legal support?
      • WMSE::We have for the set up of the organization, not for issues related to content in Wikimedia projects.


  • For the activities which you do not engage in please check the reasons why.
    • there is no opportunity
    • there is no time
    • there are not enough human resources
    • we don't feel they are relevant to our mission
    • we don't think they are part of our role ***WMSE: X
    • Add your own reasons (open ended write-in)

Wikimedia Foundation[edit]

This section is about the activities the Foundation engages into.

  • According to you, does the Foundation participate in the following activities?
    • Public outreach (advocacy)[1]: yes/no
      • WMSE:Yes
      • Comment
    • Volunteer coordination: yes/no
      • WMSE:Yes
      • Comment
    • Partnerships [2]: yes/no
      • WMSE::Yes
      • Comment
    • Grants development: yes/no
      • WMSE::Yes
      • Comment
    • Media handling and communications [3]: yes/no
      • WMSE::yes
      • Comment
    • Business development: yes/no
      • Comment
    • Fundraising: yes/no
      • WMSE::yes
      • Comment
    • Technical work: yes/no
      • Comment
    • Software development: yes/no
      • Comment
    • Other activities (open-ended write-in)
      • Comment


  • What activities does the Foundation not participate in today and should participate in?
    • (open-ended write-in)


[1] Proactive activities towards the general public

      • WMSE::we are too new to have opinions as of today

[2] Includes partnerships with other organisations/companies on joint projects

      • WMSE::we are too new to have opinions as of today

[3] Includes reactive and proactive media work

      • WMSE::we are too new to have opinions as of today

Public recognition[edit]

  • How do you rate your relationship in your country with the following: (scale of 1-6 |1:Very good |6:Very poor)
    • The press (scale of 1-6)
      • WMSE: 2
    • National/governmental/public institutions (scale of 1-6)
      • WMSE: 4
    • The general public (scale of 1-6)
      • WMSE: 4
    • For-profit companies (scale of 1-6)
      • WMSE: 4
    • Likeminded organizations (NGOs, interest groups...) (scale of 1-6)
      • WMSE: 1
    • Wikimedia community(ies) (scale of 1-6)
      • WMSE: 1


  • If you have partnered/interacted/been in contact with these, please explain briefly and to what extent and in what circumstances. (open-ended write-in)
    • The press
      • WMSE: Since we recently started, there was some articles about us. We have had good contact with the press before the start of the chapter, both due to news like the WikiScanner, and to a general interest of Wikipedia
    • National/governmental/public institutions
      • WMSE: We have contacted several of these to announce our startup, but the result was mixed. Mostly people we have had contact with before have shown interest.
    • The general public
      • WMSE: Not much of the general public is aware that we exist as we recently started.
    • For-profit companies
      • WMSE: Not many have shown any interest yet. Those who have have wanted to support us.
    • Likeminded organizations (NGOs, interest groups...)
      • WMSE: They have shown very much interest and support.
    • Wikimedia community(ies)
      • WMSE: We have had the full support of the key 30+ persons in the community from start. The active support is spreading with no one being negative.

Relationship with Wikimedia organisations, entities and individuals[edit]

  • What is your level of contact with the following: (scale of 1-6 |1:Very often in contact |6:No contact at all)
    • Other chapters
      • WMSE: 5
    • Individual members of the Board of Trustees
      • WMSE: 5
    • The Chapters coordinator
      • WMSE: 2
    • Other staff members
      • WMSE: 5
    • The Chapters committee
      • WMSE: 6
  • What is the nature of your contact with the following: (open-ended write-in) (Can range from "we fax each other every day", to "most board members of our chapter hate"...)
    • Other chapters
      • WMSE: We have tried to study and emulate the good parts of the other chapters through their respective WebPages. We have a personal relation with persons in the Norwegian chapter to be.
    • The Wikimedia Foundation (as an organisation)
      • WMSE: Not much contact, at all.
    • Members of the Board of Trustees
      • WMSE: Not much contact, save the occasional e-mail.
      • If appropriate, detail which board members
    • The Chapters coordinator
      • WMSE: We have emailed with Delphine on matters large and small for some months now, she attended our startup meeting and a dinner afterwards and we hold her in high esteem.
    • Other staff members
      • WMSE: Not much contact at all, as yet. Alpaine re translation matters.
      • If appropriate, detail which members of the staff
    • The Chapters committee
      • WMSE: No contacts at all.
  • How satisfactory is your relationship with the following: (scale of 1-6 | 1:Very satisfactory |6:Not at all satisfactory)
    • Other chapters
      • WMSE: 4
    • The Wikimedia Foundation (as an organisation)
      • WMSE: 3
    • Members of the Board of Trustees
      • WMSE: 4
    • The Chapters coordinator
      • WMSE: 1
    • Other staff members
      • WMSE: 4
    • The Chapters committee
      • WMSE: 4
  • What can you imagine doing to improve the relationship? (open-ended write-in)
    • Other chapters
      • WMSE: We can start being more active on the internal mailing list, be there for other chapters´ meetings, start going more regularly to Wikimania, and start some kind of strategy exchange program for chapters
    • The Wikimedia Foundation (as an organisation)
      • WMSE: read up on WMF´s structure, be more active on the internal mailing list, begin editing more on both Wikimedia Internal and Meta
    • Members of the Board of Trustees
      • WMSE: make contact, either through email, or trying to get someone to come to some WMSE meeting/some conference in Sweden/Scandinavia, or talk with them personally at Wikimania
    • The Chapters coordinator
      • WMSE: finish this survey, be a good and conflict free chapter
    • Other staff members
      • WMSE: same as above
    • The Chapters committee
      • WMSE: same as above

Strengths and weaknesses[edit]

Your chapter[edit]

  • List up to 3 of the most important weaknesses of your chapter today
    • Weakness 1
      • WMSE: That we still have some introductional issues to sort out, including the name approval
    • Weakness 2
      • WMSE: lack of funds
    • Weakness 3
      • WMSE: lack of response from government and for-profit-organisations
    • Elaborate on those weaknesses (open-ended write-in) (Are they relevant to the the Wikimedia movement and how, are they unique/general short term/long term weaknesses etc.?)
      • WMSE: The sorting out of preambles will be fixed in a few months.
About the lack of funds, this weakness will most likely go away, since Sweden has many grants and awards, and generally is a rich country.
The lack of response will take some work. In Sweden, Wikipedia has come in the dual position of being too good to not use, but not good enough to let others know that you use. But there have been cases where the Swedish government and newspapers have been outed using content from Swedish Wikipedia without citing us as source, so perhaps this will be cured when a) Swedish Wikipedia grows (it has already got as many articles as the Swedish version of Encyclopedia Britannica), and b) more even in its quality.
  • List up to 3 of the most important strengths of your chapter today
    • Strength 1
      • WMSE: The full support of the wider user community
    • Strength 2
      • WMSE: We have many connections, including strong supporters from the free software movement
    • Strength 3
      • WMSE: We have many plans and visions for the future
    • Elaborate on those strengths (open-ended write-in) (Are they relevant to the the Wikimedia movement and how, are they unique strengths/resources etc.?)
      • WMSE: One important aspect of the first strength is that we are not in danger of just fade away out of inaction. The board has noticed that several “ordinary” members have been willing to put in time and effort for the benefit of the chapter. With the second strength we have good opportunities ahead. And the third strength is only hinted at so far, but we are positive that we can accomplish more in Sweden with the chapter than without it.


The Foundation[edit]

  • List up to 3 of the most important weaknesses of the Wikimedia Foundation today
    • Weakness 1
      • WMSE: Communication
    • Weakness 2
    • Weakness 3
    • Elaborate on those weaknesses (open-ended write-in) (Are they relevant to the the Wikimedia movement and how, are they unique/general short term/long term weaknesses etc.?)
      • WMSE: Since we are only just started, we cannot give a more accurate feedback than saying that with so many volunteers in so many languages, it´s no wonder that there is no easy way to keep all of them up to date, except running it through interested parties in respective community. When they fail to relay the messages, either through miscommunication or through other personal commitments, the communities may start to wonder what goes on “over there in the WMF”. In fact, even when the communication works, there is so much going on at the same time, that there is no way to keep up with everything.

List up to 3 of the most important strengths of the Wikimedia Foundation today

    • Strength 1
      • WMSE: The trademarks
    • Strength 2
      • WMSE: The number of volunteers
    • Strength 3
    • Elaborate on those strengths (open-ended write-in) (Are they relevant to the the Wikimedia movement and how, are they unique strengths/resources etc.?)
      • WMSE: Here too, we must stress that we haven´t been privy to the inner workings of the WMF long enough to get a good look, but our view is that the trademarks and the number of volunteers will make it possible for the WMF to get almost anything done.

Evaluation[edit]

  • Please rank the following factors, in terms of which you think are the best measures of success for a Wikimedia chapter? (rank 1 to 8, add ranking numbers to those you add)
    • Its ability to spread public awareness of the Wikimedia projects inside its own country/region
      • WMSE: 1
    • Its ability to form productive partnerships or create successful grant applications
      • WMSE: 4
    • Its ability to coordinate volunteers for useful project activities
      • WMSE: 3
    • Its ability to help ensure positive media coverage inside its own country/region
      • WMSE: 2
    • Its ability to raise money for the projects through business development
      • WMSE: 7
    • Its ability to fundraise for the projects
      • WMSE: 5
    • Its ability to support the projects technically
      • WMSE: 6
    • Its ability to defend the legal interests of the projects inside its own country/region
      • WMSE: 8
    • List other factors we have forgotten (open ended write-in)

Future[edit]

  • A year from now, what do you, as a chapter organization, hope to be doing (check where appropriate)
    • Public outreach (advocacy)[1]: WMSE: yes
      • Comment
    • Volunteer coordination: WMSE: yes
      • Comment
    • Partnerships [2]: WMSE: yes
      • Comment
    • Grants development: WMSE: yes/no
      • Comment WMSE: if the question is whether we in a year´s time we are hoping to award other people grants, the answer is no. If the question is rather if we are looking to get grants ourselves, then the answer is yes.
    • Media handling and communications [3]: WMSE:yes
      • Comment
    • Business development: WMSE: no
      • Comment
    • Fundraising: WMSE: yes
      • Comment
    • Technical work: WMSE: no
      • Comment
    • Software development: WMSE: no
      • Comment
    • Other activities (open-ended write-in)
      • Comment
  • How would you prioritize those activities for the next year? (scale 1 to 6 | 1 Very high priority - 6 Very low priority)
    • Public outreach (advocacy)[1]
      • WMSE: 1
    • Volunteer coordination
      • WMSE: 1
    • Partnerships [2]
      • WMSE: 2
    • Grants development
      • WMSE: depends on the question, see above. If yes, then 1, if no, then 5.
    • Media handling and communications [3]
      • WMSE: 1
    • Business development
      • WMSE: 4
    • Fundraising
      • WMSE: 1
    • Technical work
      • WMSE: 5
    • Software development
      • WMSE: 5
    • Other activities (open-ended write-in)
  • If you had to choose one single most important goal for your organization for the next year, which would it be? (open-ended write-in)
      • WMSE: Educate the general public about the different Wikimedia projects and getting them/it to edit.
  • Can you in a few sentences draw a snapshot of where your chapter will be next year?
      • WMSE: We will have roughly 200 members. We will have attended our first dozen or so public events and started getting some response from universities, libraries and perhaps even government. We will have a better grasp of the possibilities and obstacles for the future. We will have been able to raise a substantial amount of money through donations.
  • How would you prioritize those activities for the next 10 years? (scale 1 to 6 | 1 Very high priority - 6 Very low priority)
    • Public outreach (advocacy)[1]
      • WMSE: 1
    • Volunteer coordination
      • WMSE: 3
    • Partnerships [2]
      • WMSE: 2
    • Grants development
      • WMSE: 3
    • Media handling and communications [3]
      • WMSE: 1
    • Business development
      • WMSE: 1
    • Fundraising
      • WMSE: 2
    • Technical work
      • WMSE: 4
    • Software development
      • WMSE: 4
    • Other activities (open-ended write-in)


[1] Proactive activities towards the general public

[2] Includes partnerships with other organisations/companies on joint projects

[3] Includes reactive and proactive media work


  • If you had to choose one single most important goal for your organization for the next 10 years, which would it be? (open-ended write-in)
      • WMSE: Fulfill the visions of the first board and then set up new goals. And then reach them.
  • Can you in a few sentences draw a snapshot of where your chapter will be in ten years? (This should include metrics such as size of your organisation, financial weight etc. as well as an idea of what your primary activities are. Something like an introductory paragraph to your website)
      • WMSE: We will have roughly 1000 members, be well respected as a source of good information, and have successfully spread knowledge of free information and the different Wikimedia projects to the general public. We will be the beneficiary of several large grants and donations each year. There is probably one or two on staff. We own a server and have helped spread free information through the developing countries through joint projects with the other chapters. We provide substantial financial funding to the whole of Wikimedia world


  • If you could describe in three sentences the ideal relationship between your chapter and the Wikimedia Foundation - what would it be?
    • In one year (open-ended write-in)
      • WMSE: We are in frequent contact. We have clear channels of communication. We support each other as best we can.
    • in ten years (open-ended write-in)
      • WMSE: We have a system of ambassadors where each chapter is represented in the WMF. WMF has become more of a coordinator and resource pool than “merely owners”. There is little or no friction between WMSE and WMF.

Statements[edit]

The purpose of this section is to trigger further debate on set ideas that we have gathered along the way. Some of the statements are provocative by design, and the agree/disagree probably will never fully "satisfy" you. However, we thank you for trying to answer those by choosing the answer that is closest to your actual feeling.

  • Please agree or disagree with the following statements: (scale 1 to 5 | 1 strongly agree - 5 Strongly disagree)
    • The primary purpose of the chapters is to attract new volunteers and spread awareness about the projects.
      • WMSE: 2
    • Chapters should exist only at the national level (e.g., France & Italy, not New York or Europe).
      • WMSE: 3
    • Chapters should exist at the national level at least (e.g. France, not New York or Basque country)
      • WMSE: 2
    • Chapters should exist at the national level at most (e.g. Italy and Germany, not Europe)
      • WMSE: 2
    • Chapters should exist at a sub-national level also (e.g. Scotland, Catalonia, New South Wales)
      • WMSE: 3 in the case there exist a separate government structure for this sub-national level
    • The Foundation should engage only in activities in the USA and in countries where there is no chapter
      • WMSE: 3
    • We are worried our chapter could disappear within the next few years.
      • WMSE: 5
    • We strongly support the Foundation's desire to put more energy towards getting free information to people in developing nations.
      • WMSE: 1
    • We hope our chapter can afford to have paid staff within the next few years.
      • WMSE: 3
    • For chapters which exist in wealthier countries, it makes sense for them to try to raise money that could be put towards projects for the developing world, such as the creation of DVDs.
      • WMSE: 1
    • It is part of the role of the chapters to support the Foundation financially (by giving cash) if they can.
      • WMSE: 1
    • The Foundation is accountable to the community
      • WMSE: 1
    • Chapters are independent enough
      • WMSE: 2
    • We need to find new, non-chapters mechanisms to support countries that may never have chapters for political, legal or other reasons.
      • WMSE: 2
    • All interest groups expressing interest in becoming a chapter should be able to become one.
      • WMSE: 5
    • It's more important for chapters to have autonomy, than for us all to have a shared communication strategy.
      • WMSE: 4
    • Money is the most important problem in the development of free knowledge
      • WMSE: 3
    • The Foundation should be the only Wikimedia body allowed to make a commercial use of the trademark
      • WMSE: 5
    • Our chapter would benefit from more help and attention from the Foundation.
      • WMSE: 3
    • The main goal of the Foundation is to provide technical support for the Wikimedia projects, all other goals are "nice to have".
      • WMSE: 4
    • If chapters are going to exist at a national level, there should be a Wikimedia USA, beside the Foundation.
      • WMSE: 2
    • Interest groups (such as left-handed wikimedians) should be able to create chapters, with the same kind of prerogatives as actual national chapters
      • WMSE: 5
    • the Wikimedia movement should only focus on existing Wikimedia projects
      • WMSE: 4
    • The Foundation alone should engage in political lobbying worldwide to change the approach to free licenses and free content.
      • WMSE: 5
    • The Wikimedia projects should stay forever ad-free
      • WMSE: 3
    • Chapters should be consulted in the establishment of the overall strategy of the Foundation
      • WMSE: 1
    • The chapters represent the community
      • WMSE: 2
    • The chapters should elect members of the board of the Wikimedia Foundation
      • WMSE: 2
    • Chapters should have leverage in the decision making processes of individual projects.
      • WMSE: 4
    • The Foundation should have leverage in the decision making processes of individual projects.
      • WMSE: 4

Miscellaneous[edit]

  • Rate this survey on a scale from 1 to 6
    • 1:Very useful - 6: Useless
      • WMSE: 2
  • General comments on this survey (open ended write-in)
      • WMSE: One of the benefits of surveys such as this is that one has to think about the situation on a larger scale than one usually does. That´s why we think that it should be done again in some years from now (but a little shorter). This would also give everyone a chance to see where opinions have swayed and what questions are important from survey to survey.