Strategy monitoring plan/Outcomes/Q2
|G1.1 The quantity of open knowledge continues to increase||Number of uploads||Track||
|TEXT - Sum of contribution edit size (1)||Track||
1,111,483 bytes this quarter
1,354,913 bytes this quarter
|WMF Global Metric 6||Track|
|G1.2 The quality of open knowledge continues to improve||Percentage of WMUK-related files (e.g. images) in mainspace use on a Wikimedia project (excluding Commons)||
|WMF Global Metric 4 - absolute # of images used (to be calculated from the captured image numbers)||Track||176 images||773 images|
|Number of files (e.g. images) that have featured status on a Wikimedia project (including Commons)||
|<30 (estimate due to difficult timing, will be exact for 6 mth report)||43 (Q1 and Q2)|
|Number of new articles started on a Wikimedia site (eg any of the encyclopedias, incl Wicipedia)||800 - will run fewer editathons and classroom assignments. Wales activities may focus less on creating articles.||113 this quarter||133 this quarter|
|WMF Global Metric 5 - articles created and improved||Track||Estimate only as there is no automated tool to collect data||Estimate only as there is no automated tool to collect data|
|G1.3 We are perceived as the go-to organisation by UK GLAM, educational, and other organisations who need support or advice for the development of open knowledge.||Not a KPI. Performance will be reflected in a narrative, rather than giving a numeric indicator of reputation rankings.||This is not a KPI. Narrative on our achievements will be captured though.||In Q1 we focused on sustaining existing partnerships (mainly WIR projects carried over from 2014-15). We also audited current and dormant external relationships, to assess which ones will be given resources from WMUK (staff capacity and possibly supplementary funding). A partnership package was created, to supplement our work with external organisations.||Focused approach continued in Q2, although towards the end of it we were able to start building activities as the transition period was drawing to a close. Our focus on new systems was also a focus of the Volunteer Strategy Day in July 2015, where we worked through a ‘project proposal form’ aiming to bring volunteers closer to partnerships with external organisations too.|
|G2a.1 We have a thriving community of WMUK volunteers||Number of volunteers (people involved in WMUK activities) (3)||
|620 in trailing 12 months.
84 in this quarter
|543 in trailing 12 months.|
112 in year to date
|WMF Global Metric 3 (But note, we exclude those who attend [are 'involved'] but do not give us contact details)||Track|
|Number of leading volunteers [3a]||
|259 in the trailing 12 months||261 in the trailing 12 months|
|Number of activity units (4)||1800 (if we count attendees at any events)||403 in year to date||537 in year to date|
|Number of leading activity units (5)||400 (-Wikimania and the less active period in Q1)||40 in year to date||63 in year to date|
|G2a.2 WMUK volunteers are highly diverse.||Proportion of activity units (4) attributable to women||38%||37% in year to date (may undercount as WIR reports include more on this topic). Art+Feminism events were held at the Hepworth Wakefield and the University of Abertay, Dundee. Connect @ Edinburgh Napier University also saw the running on an event 'Writing Women Back into History'.||36% in year to date|
|Proportion of leading activity units (5) attributable to women||28%||47% in year to date||44% in year to date|
|G2a.3 WMUK volunteers are skilled and capable.||Annual survey capability score (6) (self-identified)||Repeat survey - overall score of 4/5. Follow up on 2014 identified actions||Not yet carried out||Not yet carried out|
|G2b.1 We have effective and high quality governance and resource management processes, and are recognised for such within the Wikimedia movement and the UK charity sector.||Not a KPI||Performance can be captured as a narrative, continued work on governance processes are at this time not a key priority.||The board will be asked to feed back for the 6 month update report. The office had a strong focus on auditing current systems (with a project focus), in preparation for gradually introducing the new approach in Q2 and beyond.||The charity's quality of governance has been formally recognised by our independent reviewer, and we are proud of the progress we have made over the last 12 months. That said, some aspects of implementation continue to cause inefficiencies, including our CiviCRM computer system which remains problematic. Our new staff structure, with greater focus on volunteer-facing roles, will take time to bed in, and inevitably the reorganisation has required significant internal effort to audit and improve our office systems.|
|G2b.2 We have a high level of openness and transparency, and are recognised for such within the Wikimedia movement and the UK charity sector.||Transparency compliance (10) as determined by Govcom against published transparency commitments||4 out of 5||2/5 - a result of the constraints on publication of materials during the period of consultation on redundancies||3/5 - The need to improve openness and fully bring volunteers into the heart of everything we do remains a top priority, as evidenced by last month's volunteer strategy day. Work still remains to be done to incorporate these ideas into our day to day practice, and to ensure that everyone builds the questions 'how can I help volunteers?' and 'how can volunteers help me?' into all activities.|
|G2b.3 We have high quality systems to measure our impact as an organisation.||Not a KPI||Performance can be reported as a narrative.||We have worked to update our KPIs system () to simplify it and bring closer in line with WMF Global Metrics, where possible. Reduced programme capacity in the quarter meant that some activities would have been underreported.||We updated our KPIs system () to simplify it and bring closer in line with WMF Global Metrics, where possible. We are pleased with the results and are only marking down due to presumed underreporting of metrics.|
|G2b.4 We ensure a stable, sustainable and diverse funding stream.||Return On Investment (with and without staff time) i.e. spend per £1 raised||To be set by the CEO with fundraising duties.||As agreed the target itself will be set by the new CEO; this will then allow for reporting on this area.||As agreed the target itself will be set by the new CEO; this will then allow for reporting on this area.|
|G3.1 Access to Wikimedia projects is increasingly available to all, irrespective of personal characteristics, background or situation.||Not a KPI||This aspect needs to be considered at project planning stage, but is not a KPI.||n/a||n/a|
|G3.2 There is increased awareness of the benefits of open knowledge.||Not a KPI||Not tracked in 2015-16||Not tracked in 2015-16||Not tracked in 2015-16|
|G3.3 Legislative and institutional changes favour the release of open knowledge.||Involvement in EU and UK advocacy activities; Involvement in advocating legislative change within GLAM, Education, and other organisations - narrative||narrative - 3 cases of change / our evidence being considered||Please see notes below.||Please see notes below.|
|G4.1 There are robust and efficient tools readily available to enable the creation, curation and dissemination of open knowledge.||Not a KPI||Capturing activities as a narrative, but without an organisational goal towards it||Currently working on launchpad.wikimedia.org.uk as a platform to showcase the charity's technology projects and encourage wider participation. It is hoped that this could be the first step in encouraging now technology projects.||In July 2015 we held a Volunteer Strategy Gathering to discuss the new structure of the charity. Amongst the topics discussed was the function of a proposed Evaluation Working Group which would help the charity assess projects at an early stage for how they would support the charity's objectives. The conversation is on-going at this stage, and the charity will publish the results of the day once they have been written up. Our grants application process is being reviewed to make it easier to participate.|
|G4.2 There are robust and efficient tools readily available to allow WMUK - and related organisations - to support our own programmes and to enable us to effectively record impact measures.||Not a KPI||Capturing activities as a narrative, but without an organisational goal towards it||Our CiviCRM installation, stats.wikimedia.org.uk, and QRpedia continue to be maintained by the charity||Our CiviCRM installation, stats.wikimedia.org.uk, and QRpedia continue to be maintained by the charity|
|G5.1 A thriving set of other Wikimedia communities||Activities held for or jointly with other chapters and Wikimedia groups||5 (due to internal focus in 2015-16)||None in this quarter||6|
|Number of UK based Wikimedia events other than WMUK events||55||18 in this quarter||13 in this quarter|
|G5.2 An increased diversity of Wikimedia contributors||Not a KPI||Capturing activities as a narrative, but without an organisational goal towards it||None in this quarter||None in this quarter|
|G5.3 Wikimedia communities are skilled and capable.||Activities specifically directed to help train or to share knowledge with other chapters and Wikimedia groups||2||None in this quarter||4|
|G5.4 Open Knowledge communities with missions similar to our own are thriving.||Number of shared activities (14) hosted with groups or organisations having similar goals to WMUK||>10 (via the Open Coalition project)||5. Over Q1 and Q2, the Open Coalition project focuses on: (1) Adding and expanding chapters in Community Builders Toolkit in collaboration with Mozilla, Ushahidi, OpenDirective, SocialTIC - 1 activity. (2) Open Policy: work as a member of the steering committee of the Open Policy Network developing the programme for and selection of their second group of Open Policy Fellows - 1 activity. (3) Network building with open organisations in Berlin, including Wikimedia Deutschland, Hive Berlin, Mozilla - 3 activities. ()||3|
We were active during Q1 in a number of ways. In the UK, the work of the Speaker's Commission on Digital Democracy concluded. Wikimedia UK took part in this consultation examining how technological tools can help facilitate wider engagement with civic society. The House of Lords Select Committee on Digital Skills published its final report in February, with information from Wikimedia UK's submission included. We continued to engage with Demos and other groups to explore more fully the concept of digital democracy, particularly looking at how Wikipedia's consensus-based approach to policy creation and enactment could be applied to wider democratic processes. During this period work began on a joint funding bid (with Demos and Open Coalition) for a grant from the Knight Foundation.
In European advocacy Wikimedia UK continues to be an active member of the Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU. The group continued to make the case for liberalisation of copyright regulation across Europe, particularly as it applies to the freedom of panorama. This included reviewing proposed amendments to the Reda copyright reform report. Work on this continued with greater urgency in Q2.
In quarter two Wikimedia UK's advocacy efforts mostly focused on campaigning around Freedom of Panorama. The Reda report on copyright reform was progressing through the European Union and initially it recommended the harmonisation of freedom of panorama. However, as the proposal went through the amendment process the opposite position gained traction and there was a real risk that a non-commercial exception was to be applied across the EU. This would have been disastrous for the Wikimedia movement and necessitated the removal of tens of thousands of files from Wikimedia Commons.
In response to this, Wikimedia UK played a leading role in a campaign to prevent the loss of freedom of panorama. This included contacting members of the European Parliament (MEPs), generating media coverage for the campaign and co-ordinating a letter to The Times (a serious business in the UK) which was signed by several other organisations including associations of activists such as Open Rights Group, and trade bodies that support journalists and photographers.
The end result was that the campaign was successful and freedom of panorama was maintained. Although this fell slightly short of our overall ambition of securing FoP for all European member states, maintaining the status quo can still be considered as a success.
We created a learning pattern about campaigning - 
In other advocacy news, our head of external relations was invited to the UK government's Foreign & Commonwealth Office to participate in a policy discussion related to freedom of expression. This is important recognition of the charity's growing reputation as an organisation of influence. Our head of programmes and evaluation attended a workshop on the implications of the UK voting to leave the European Union in the referendum which is likely to take place next year. This is an important first step in contingency planning for this possibility.
The Wikimedian in Residence project continued to make an impact on the policy and guidelines changes in their institutions (and beyond).
- The National Library of Wales had already adopted a policy of not claiming copyright on out of copyright material, but more progress has been made in shifting towards open access. The high number of image views on Wikipedia has certainly helped this cause, and work has begun on creating a new digitisation workflow which includes the identification and upload of suitable collections to Wiki Commons.
- Museum Galleries Scotland, who we are working with on the WIR project, are aspiring to establish an access policy for the whole of Scotland. It will include open data licensing information and editing Wikipedia, and create a big package of information for institutions in the network. This is following on (and being inspired by, showing a further impact of the WIR project) from the work of the National Library of Scotland and their residency which finished in Q1 of this year.
- Martin Poulter from the Bodleian WIR project was interviewed by a consultant as part of a Resource Discovery project which is reviewing the Bodleian's online presence. He suggested some changes that would treat users as remixers rather than recipients, for example to make reuse rights as visible as the images themselves - Wikimedia Commons was used prominently as an example. We are told the recommendations will make it into the report.
Notes and Definitions
|(1)||Positive edit size||Sum of edit sizes in characters where text content has been added overall to the mainspace of a Wikimedia wiki.||We are here measuring quantity not quality of educational text content. We ignore all edits where content has been deleted overall, on the basis that deletions cannot generally be equated with the negative addition of content by that editor. We are aware that such an approach is relatively broad-brush, and will actively seek improved tools/measures in this area.|
|(2)||Institution reputation rating||Our estimate of the external reputation of each GLAM, education organisation or learned society that we work with.||This information is solely to enable us to track our own charitable impact consistently, and we will not be publishing the values we use for individual organisations|
|(3)||WMUK volunteer||WMUK activities and volunteers#WMUK volunteers|
|(3a)||Leading volunteer||WMUK activities and volunteers#WMUK leading volunteers|
|(4)||Activity unit||WMUK activities and volunteers#Activity units|
|(5)||Leading activity unit||WMUK activities and volunteers#Leading activity units|
|(6)||Annual survey capability score||To be defined||Questions to be written||Proposed survey to be repeated annually by WMUK|
|(7)||Leading volunteer drop out rate||The proportion of our leading volunteers volunteers that drop out (no longer remain actively engaged with us) annually||Determined for each volunteer one year after first activity, two years and so on.|
|(8)||Tracking/measuring systems||The manual and automated systems by which WMUK tracks outputs/outcomes in accordance with the strategic plan|
|(9)||Transparency score||To be defined||Questions to be written||Proposed survey to be repeated annually by WMUK|
|(10)||Transparency compliance||As measured by Govcom against published transparency commitments||Commitments to be defined|
|(11)||Scans of QRpedia codes||The number of times QRpedia codes are used to direct to a Wikipedia article||This a is a subset of (15)|
|(12)||Awareness score||To be defined||Questions to be written||Proposed survey to be repeated annually by WMUK|
|(13)||Shared activity units||A count of the number of units contributed by volunteers (not necessarily WMUK volunteers) on shared activities (14)||With technology-based groups or organisations having similar goals to WMUK|
|(14)||Shared activities||Activities that WMUK jointly lead with some other group||Does not include activities run by other groups that WMUK volunteers or staff simply attend or engage with. Depending on context, the other group could be Wikimedia-related (eg a chapter) or could be external to the Wikimedia movement (eg OpenStreetMaps)|
|(15)||Uses of tools||The number of times in aggregate a WMUK tool is used.|
|(16)||Eval measure||A best-judgement evaluation on a scale of 1 to 5 (5=best)||Used in lieu of a objective metric where such a metric is impossible or currently impracticable to obtain|
|(18)||WMUK activity||WMUK activities and volunteers#WMUK activity|