2014 Activity Plan/Wikimedians in Residence

Lead member of staff

Daria Cybulska

Indicative budget amount

£71,000

Description and overall rationale

In the past year we have seen more institutions (GLAM, education and others) working with Wikimedia UK. The chapter is nurturing the drive to share collections and information to increase the sum of human knowledge. The UK Wikimedian in Residence programme is a powerful expression of this drive. We are part-funding Wikimedian in Residence positions to support opportunities in particular areas. The number of positions depends on negotiations with partner institutions about how a Wikimedian in Residence fits with their organisation and how much support they will make available. These posts build strong bridges with institutions and also act as a focus for community involvement and development.

Each residency has individual goals that are in line with Wikimedia UK's objectives; to learn more please see below.

2013 plan can be seen here.

Timelines - i.e. what happens quarter by quarter

• Recruitment drive in the beginning of Q1 - residencies start towards the end of Q1 and depending on the funding and demand continue throughout the rest of 2014-15; continuing of existing residencies
• Q2: Review of the programme to date
• Q3: Another requirement drive as required

Success criteria and Metrics - overall and quarter by quarter breakdown if relevant

Goals

The quantity and quantity of Open Knowledge continues to increase:

• WIRs are facilitating content donations (as an indication we would be looking at 5000 images pa) (WIR monthly reports, GLAM stat tools)

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:

• Number of live associations with organisations (e.g. those hosting a WIR) maintained by WMUK - target of 50 contributing to the total reputational score (corresponding to about 5 institutions) (civi)
• We could consider taking into consideration content releases done independently by institutions. It's a good indicator of our reputational value and perception of open content (narration)

WMUK volunteers are highly diverse:

• Events delivered by the WIR (training, editathons, etc) contribute to global targets of diversity and recruitment (e.g. 20% of female attendees overall) (civi)

Legislative and institutional changes favour the release of Open Knowledge:

• Number of organisations that have changed positively e.g. in their content policies - 5pa (Narrative)

Operationally, we want to make sure that the following things take place:

• Review of the programme is carried out (on wiki)
• Good quality WiRs are selected, 5 active in 2014-15 (documentation on wiki)
• A clear programme of activities for each WIR established and delivered in consultation with the host institutions (information gathered on office wiki)
• Every residency has own targets and expected outcomes
• Case study produced and ongoing reports monthly or bimonthly (wiki)

Risks

• Reputation and conflicts of interest. (Countermeasure: WMUK is putting in place contracts to protect both parties and the WiR themselves)
• WiRs are unable to bridge their host community, the Wikimedia UK community and the general population (Countermeasure: Support the GLAM network with shared case studies, workshopping and mobilize support as needed for key points in the most visible projects)
• Funding will not be scalable as demand increases (Countermeasure: Build relationships with significant independent funding bodies)