Strategy monitoring plan/Outcomes/Q3
|1. # of active editors involved||275 in year to date.|
|2. # of new editors||111 new editors this quarter.|
|3. # of individuals involved||260 individuals involved this quarter.|
|4. # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages||409 images this quarter.|
|5. # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects||3153 articles this quarter (estimate).|
|6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects||9,698,704 bytes this quarter.|
|G1.1 The quantity of open knowledge continues to increase||Number of uploads||Track||
Most of the images come from activities delivered by WIRs. An imagethon was held in October as part of the Ada Lovelace Day, a Welsh Landscapes event was organised by the WIR in NLW, and a photography event was organised by the WIR in MGS where attendees took pictures and uploaded them to Commons.
It’s worth mentioning that several projects focused strongly on quality of images. For example Bodleian Library WIR handpicks key items which are then showcased within Wikipedia articles.
|TEXT - Sum of contribution edit size (1)||Track||
1,111,483 bytes this quarter
1,354,913 bytes this quarter
9,698,704 bytes this quarter
A stub contest (volunteer grant) that ran for the whole month of August increased the number of bytes this quarter significantly - it contributed to 87% of bytes added. The contest involved experienced volunteers improving and enriching various articles.
Other editing volunteer grants, like the Golden Hollywood, and the Rugby World editathon were contributing significantly as well.
|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)||
|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)||47 [Q 1, 2, 3] - 4 new files in Q3 (note - the reporting on the first half of the year captured 5 Featured Pictures which were promoted in August (so part of Q3) so the Q2 figure should actually be 38, and so 9 new files in Q3)|
|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||148 this quarter
Our activities focused much more on improving and expanding existing articles - changed focus in Wales, and no Classroom assignments this quarter mean we are not creating as many articles.
|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.||With the systems in place, we are now deepening existing partnerships, and at the same time seeking to re-engage, or establish new links.
In Q3 we worked with 25 organisations through WIRs, maintaining existing partnerships, establishing and engaging with new partnerships, and working on events.
Several WIR projects are putting effort into sustaining the relationships after the project's end. A member of NLW staff is being trained to teach Wikipedia editing skills. The member can assist WIR during busy events. This is part of the commitment by the NLW to continue to host Wikipedia related events once the residency has ended.
Please also see Jason’s /NLW infographics showing his impact so far which is impressive https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/File:NLW_WIKI_Stats.png_large.png
In a similar vein, the resident at MGS developed training courses to be delivered through the national MGS Skills Development Programme. Linking Wikimedia skills to the established skills programme will give us visibility and significant recognition.
At Bodleian Libraries, the resident wrote an article for CILIP Update, the print magazine of the information professional society CILIP, urging libraries to contribute to Wikisource and Wikipedia to drive interest in their collections.
|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
|757 in trailing 12 months.
To facilitate engagement, the grant application process has been overhauled. An evaluation panel has been set up to assess project grants, while simpler applications can be fast-tracked through staff.
|Number of leading volunteers [3a]||
|259 in the trailing 12 months||261 in the trailing 12 months||307 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||936 in year to date (399 in this quarter). It is worth highlighting National Library of Wales resident work in engaging library’s volunteers in his work. He set up a project to scan index 200 images donated during the Patagonia Editathon; these images will be uploaded to the People’s Collection Wales and Wikimedia Commons. Additionally, a group of 3-4 volunteers are receiving weekly catch up sessions on editing Wikipedia and continue to make regular edits.|
|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||78 in year to date. 39 in this quarter. Definitions of lead volunteers have been revised, resulting in a lower number of leading activity units.|
|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||37% in year to date. The WIR in MGS held events such as Women in the Honour Roll and Ada Lovelace Day Editathon that had 80 and 93.57% female attendance. Furthermore, the WIR in Bodleian Libraries held a series events for Ada Lovelace Day in October where the attendees were mostly women. Additionally an event with with British Library on Women in Food attended mainly by women This model of events continues to be successful, and is reused by our partner institutions, and two other gender-gap events are scheduled for March next year. The Evaluation Panel recruited three women.|
|Proportion of leading activity units (5) attributable to women||28%||47% in year to date||44% in year to date||54% in year to date (69% in the quarter)|
|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||To be carried out in Q4|
|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.||Wikimedia UK has done significant work on improving governance. At the same time, it was only in Q3, after the challenging transition, that we established the programme team, and had the permanent CEO start. We are adjusting to our new staff capacity, which has been a stimulus to find more effective ways of working.
In terms of finance management, our standards of budgeting and reporting processes is very high and professional.
|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.||3/5 - The committee agreed a transparency score of 3/5 for the three months Aug-Oct. Negative points were the lack of public discussion about volunteer strategy following the last volunteer strategy day, and the fact that publication of trustee expenses seems to have ceased. Positive points include the CE's significant efforts immediately on appointment to get out to meet the community, and the early posting of draft policy reviews for community input.|
|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.||The updated KPI system for 2015-16, and a further simplified system for 2016-17 was appreciated by both FDC staff and volunteers. To quote, “WMUK has clear objectives for its programs and is including quality logic models alongside these objectives. WMUK has improved significantly in this area, as reducing the number of targets they are tracking will make their evaluation plan more feasible. Wikimedia UK is also documenting learning, sharing widely with the movement”.|
|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.||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||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||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.||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.||We are looking into issues around Mediawiki displaying 3D file formats.
Overall, however, it has to be noted that we don’t currently have capacity to support major projects developing knowledge dissemination tools.
At the same time, however a software is being developed at National Library of Wales to extract images from the Welsh Newspapers digital collection. The eventual numbers and timing are unclear but the NLW has committed to releasing many to Commons.
|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||We continue to use Wikimetrics to measure metrics regarding editing, while CiviCRM allows us to monitor participation. Q3 saw a volunteer develop a tool to measure the absolute number of bytes added to articles. This complements Wikimetrics as it allows you to pick out individual articles. It has been very useful for measuring the impact of article writing supported by project grants which is usually led by one or two editors. Because these edits are often interspersed with non-grant related edits it would not be effective to use Wikimetrics.
As much as this area is not perfect, we are continuing to make improvements within it.
|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||None in this quarter|
|Number of UK based Wikimedia events other than WMUK events||55||18 in this quarter||13 in this quarter||18 events including 12 meetups in six different cities.|
|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||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||None in this quarter|
|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||4.
For Q3 the Open Coalition project worked on:(1) Content Development of a Community Management Toolkit - 1 activity. (2) Delivered a presentation to the Internet Public Policy Research Group t Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society on Open Knowledge - 1 activity. (3) Lead a session on open learning and community building at Mozfest 2015 - 1 activity. (4) Working with the School of Open to develop teaching materials for “What is open?” course materials to learners in Kenya, in partnership with JamLab Nairobi - 1 activity.
2 cases of change - MGS resident successfully advocated for the conversion of the back end of the new MGS Intangible Heritage inventory to be released on a CC-BY-SA license. The People’s Collection Wales management are committed to changing their policy and try to phase out of the use of the Creative Archives Non-commercial license.
One potential significant change is that MGS 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. Work continues.
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|