Annual review 2013-14

From Wikimedia UK
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page has been created as a starting point for the charity's 2013-14 annual review. It begins with an outline of proposed sections and ideas for content. It is important that the review is created collectively and reflects the work of the volunteers, trustees and staff. Please do feel free to work on the ideas below, including linking to images and expanding copy. Please also use the talk page for suggestions, comments and ideas for supplementary content.

Front cover[edit | edit source]

Wiki Loves Monuments winning image, perhaps, or a montage similar to these ones created by Rock drum https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/File:WMUK_staff_collage.png and https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/File:WMUK_volunteer_collage.png

The collage could work, though they would presumably need to be cropped if they're all going to be the same size. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Probably the simpler, the better. A montage can easily appear messy (although rock drum's ones are quite good!). Somewhat contradicting that, another option might be a photo mosaic made up of lots of WMUK-supported images. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
A general point on images (not just front cover): making use of WMUK-supported old PD images throughout would be a nice touch, and would allow us to pick more interesting photos than here-is-a-picture-of-an-editathon-with-some-people-sitting-round-a-table. Can also use one or two of the more striking ones as a light black and white overlay to soften what could otherwise appear to be big slabs of text. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 05:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Page 2[edit | edit source]

Message from Jon as Chief Executive. Photo , pull quote, around 250 words of copy

Need a better and more interesting photo (Rock Drum?) --MichaelMaggs (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Page 3[edit | edit source]

Message from Michael Maggs as Chair. Photo, pull quote, around 250 words of copy

I'd suggest switching the order with page 2. Volunteers first? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Need a better and more interesting photo (Rock Drum?) --MichaelMaggs (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Pages 4 & 5[edit | edit source]

Montage of photos and quotes from the past year. Photos to reflect the diversity of our projects, our volunteers and our events. Include quotes from donor testimonials. Also include stories from volunteers, perhaps Lucile as our intern.

I suggest it would be useful to have endorsements from people we have partnered with in the last year, e.g. Heads of Collections from institutions with a WIR, partners in Welsh projects.Mccapra (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Also what about a page with dashboard-type summary info: top ten achievements in 2013, five activities involving the most volunteers, key new partners, or whatever.Mccapra (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Nice idea. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Page 6[edit | edit source]

Last year we went with membership here. We could do the same again and include similar charts and graphs. A useful breakdown of trends and a focus on the recruitment strategy.

The purpose of the AR is to show our impact so I'd suggest it makes sense for us to lead on items where we have had a fairly large impact and work our way down from the top, so to speak. Membership growth has not been a notable success for us in 2013 and I think it would be odd to put that ahead of WIR projects, EU collaboration, work in Wales or other valuable things we have achieved.Mccapra (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Page 7[edit | edit source]

Last year we went with fundraising on this page and it makes sense to keep fundraising and membership together on facing pages. However, it may be that we decide to aggregate the two on the same page. Open to suggestions here.

I would keep both sections very short, and move them back in the booklet, as we have neither done much fundraising nor much in the way of membership enhancements. As Alastair has indicated elsewhere on this page, it would be better to focus more on our external impact and less on internal stuff. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Pages 8 & 9[edit | edit source]

Last year we went with Wikipedia takes Coventry here, making use of some of the excellent photos gathered at the event. This year, the equivalent project will be Wiki Loves Monuments but that will be the centre page feature. This year we'll bring Education and EduWiki forward to 8 & 9. Lots of good work happening in this field that Toni can summarise eloquently. We can make a fuss of the bilingual nature of the event, definitely including an image of the live translation. Include a QR code which points to Rock drum's excellent EduWiki video

Pages 10-11[edit | edit source]

It makes sense to use this space for Wiki Loves Monuments this time. We could include a similar design for the figures that we used last year, too. A good way to highlight the large number of participants and images collected. An image of the awards evening would be worthwhile, too.

Pages 12-13[edit | edit source]

Last year these pages focused on Ada Lovelace Day. We could go down this route again although some of the other activities that we have undertaken would be very worth of similar coverage.

Suggestions are very welcome. Anything special, distinctive or 1-off for 2013 should precede more routine or longer-standing activities. Mccapra (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The voice project, and Stephen Fry's tweet. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Page 14[edit | edit source]

Microgrants featured on this page in 2012-13 and we should include microgrants again this year. A good breakdown of applications received and approved is a good place to start, with details of how to apply for similar.


Page 15[edit | edit source]

Last year we featured train the trainers in this slot last year. I am not convinced we need to include Train the Trainers again this year. We have plenty of other projects that we could feature instead. A page about general GLAM activity would be worthwhile here, as well as to pick up Wikimedians in Residence later on in the booklet.

I don't feel that the proposed page and focus really tell a story about what we've been doing over the past year. I don't think putting microgrants on one page and then GLAM activity on the next helps people to understand what we're trying to do and what we've done to achieve it. We should begin by saying what we set out to achieve in 2013, and then show how we worked to deliver that, working in general terms from the larger and more significant items towards the smaller or less significant ones. We should make sure we properly cover things that did not go well, or as expected, so it does not read like dreary corporate puff. Towards the end we can perhaps have lessons learned and plans for 2014. Mccapra (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I can agree with the ordering being a bit incoherent. It's just laying out where we were at last year and how we might adapt this year so these comments are really welcome, especially as we are at a very early stage with the review. Not sure I agree about covering things that didn't go so well. We are often awash with negativity anyway so I'd prefer the review to have a much more positive focus. There's a tendency to self-criticise within our movement and I am not keen to continue that off-wiki if we can avoid it. But I do take your point and am happy to concede it if others agree. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate we don't want a long litany of mishaps and woes. However I think a lot of charities fall into the trap of producing glossy pap with lots of pictures of children facepainting and everything being luvlee. Nobody reads them because they are like Persil adverts. The Charity Commission actually wants charities to be up front about things which have not gone according to plan and lessons learned, and without driving a nail into our own eyeball we can show that we are reflective and constantly striving to improve. Mccapra (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
+1. An improvement plan responding to key performance indicators would have been a useful thing to refer to to demonstrate the charity is a learning organization rather than either a defensive or reactive one. -- (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Page 16[edit | edit source]

Last year we had a page looking at governance. Given that 2012-13 was a turbulent year in matters of governance. There's no need to focus so closely on governance this year as the charity has been more stable. Instead, I propose that we extend the coverage of Wikimedians in Residence to cover both P16 and 17.

Would be worth having a short section on our new strategic framework --MichaelMaggs (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Pages 18 & 19[edit | edit source]

This section last year covered the activities and priorities for the coming year. We should cover this again and focus on lots of the excellent projects that we have coming up, such as Wikimania and the development of the open coalition.

Page 20[edit | edit source]

Last year this was the back cover. It featured the Wikimedia logo family, along with credits, licensing information and some of the more prosaic details – staff list, trustee list, charity number etc. This would be the case for the outside back cover this year.

General comments[edit | edit source]

Length[edit | edit source]

It is proposed that the annual review extend to 24 pages for the year 2013-14 to reflect the extension of our activities. At least a page devoted to the work that has been happening in Wales is essential. Other suggestions for content to feature in the review, as well as content contributions, are extremely welcome.

It's worth noting that the WMF has gone the opposite way, and have shortened their annual report considerably rather than expanding it. There's a cost:benefit analysis exercise here - is the extra length worth the extra cost? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Language[edit | edit source]

I'd like to see the Welsh language given considerable prominence in this publication. Perhaps Jon could do us a bilingual intro? Other Welsh contributions would be a valuable addition I think.Mccapra (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

What about other languages, such as Cornish or Polish? It might be better to go for different language editions rather than having a single version containing multiple languages. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I suspect that would be much too expensive, and - apart from Welsh - not really core to the work we have been doing this past year. I like the idea of Jon writing a bilingual intro. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Financial info[edit | edit source]

Are we including summary financial information on the charity? I think we should. Mccapra (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

If it's useful. All of the financials and statutory information tends to be included in the SoRP report which is much drier. Happy for us to include here if we think it's useful. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Advocacy work[edit | edit source]

Could we find somewhere to mention this new type of work we are doing? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Will have a think about this. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 10:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Press mentions?[edit | edit source]

Anything we could say here? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. One way we approached this last year was to include screenshots of relevant clips at appropriate points. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 10:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

List of partners / organisations we've worked with[edit | edit source]

Would be good to include a list of organisations we've worked with over the past year and offer them our thanks. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 10:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)