Affiliations Committee/Recommendations November 2025/Affiliate Model

Affiliations Committee draft recommendations for the ecosystem (November 2025)

CONTEXT

AFFILIATE MODEL

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

Affiliate model

Purpose

Why do we have affiliates? What is the value proposition of affiliates?
Help the movement achieve its mission and vision. Use geographic and non-geographic groups and entities to have contextual impact.

1. Make communities thrive. Cater to the needs of content-creating communities.
2. Create opportunities. Develop local relationships (e.g., partnerships, government support, donor base, local readership).
3. Nurture sense of belonging. Inspire and motivate contribution.

Outcome of the change process

What is the goal of the proposed affiliate model? What is the expected outcome?
GOAL: Improved support systems for wider reach and stronger impact.

1. Clarity. Clear roles and responsibilities for all the different types of affiliates.
2. Coordination. Cross-affiliate collaboration without unnecessary overlaps.
3. Impact. Run effective programs and support to communities and partners.

Proposal for future affiliate model

What is the AffCom recommendation? What do we want the future affiliate landscape to look like?

Core distinction

1. Geographic affiliates (national or regional): Geographically based. Create clarity of reach and scope. Avoid overlaps.
2. Thematic affiliates (topic or focus area): Thematically focused. Enhance coordination in particular work areas.

Proposed affiliate categories

For both geographic + thematic

• Chapters. Formally organized groups. With clear scope and structures.
• User Groups. Informally organized groups. Particular activities and loose structures.

Overlap factors

No affiliate should have an overlap of any of these factors with another affiliate.

• Same audience, target group
• Same tools, resources, funding
• Same outcomes, impact

No overlapping affiliate should be recognized and evolving overlaps need to be mitigated.

Governance and funding tiers

Note: While the Affiliations Committee is not responsible for the decisions regarding funding of affiliates, it does make a recommendation to connect the maturity of affiliates and the funding available to them in a more direct way. This is a recommendation to the Community Resources team of Wikimedia Foundation, Regional Fund Committees, and the Global Resource Distribution Committee responsible for the funding decisions.

Rights and responsibilities of groups and organizations increase as they evolve through tiers of positive track record and improving governance structures.

Level	Category	Description
1	Basic	Informal user groups. Having the right to use trademarks, with limited or no access to financial resources.
2	Organized	For groups and entities (either informal or formal, user groups, hubs, or chapters) with a proven governance model. Eligible to receive funding (directly or through fiscal sponsor).
3	Established	For formal entities (hubs or chapters) with proven track record (incl. governance and management of funds). Suggestion to have access to annual funding.
4	Mature	For formal entities (hubs or chapters) with an established track record (incl. governance and management of funds). Suggestion to have access to multi-year funding and fundraising activities.

Coordination and collaboration (hubs)

For better coordination and collaboration of the affiliates, geographic and thematic hubs can be set up with the focus on peer support and coordination of activities and impact.

Expectations for affiliates

What is the expected impact? What are the general responsibilities and rights of affiliates?

Core principles

1. More rights with more responsibilities. More rights (e.g., funding, general support, trademark use) come from taking on more responsibilities to the community, partners, and movement.
2. Proven track record. Demonstration of capabilities needed to increase level of responsibility and rights.
3. Collaboration over competition. Collaboration for collective impact; avoid unnecessary overlaps or duplicate programmatic work (i.e. same goals, same tools, same audience).

Core expectations

1. Representation. Demonstrated representation of community (e.g., number of active members, size of supported community, number of supported partners).
2. Proven governance model. A governance model aligned with best practices, including clearly defined responsibilities and accountability.
3. Consistent results. Meeting programmatic goals and development targets.

Expectations for Affiliations Committee

What role will AffCom play?

Core expectations

1. Recognition / Derecognition. Key role for AffCom for all affiliate types and categories, including onboarding and offboarding.
2. Connector. Help create connections between affiliates and existing support systems (e.g., conflict management, capacity development).
3. Advisor for Wikimedia grantmakers. AffCom provides advice to Wikimedia grantmaking organizations (e.g., WMF), and related committees (e.g., RFCs and GRDC)

Questions for feedback

• In your perspective, what is the most effective and clear high level definition for Wikimedia affiliates?
  • Should the distinction be geographic and thematic? Geographic and non-geographic? Something else?
  • How do language based groups and affiliates fit into this picture?
• In your perspective, what would be the most functional future set up for the hubs?
  • Should they be organized entities or informal coordination structures?
  • Should hubs be membership organizations? If yes, then should they be constituted by affiliates or community representatives or individual members?
• In your perspective, what affiliate categories are needed in the movement for most clarity and impact?
  • Could thematic organizations be folded into the chapter category to include non-geographic or thematic chapters?
  • What is the ideal organizational growth path for non-geographic or thematic organizations? Should there be a specific layer for organized entities or should they rather evolve into hubs?
  • Should there be a category for partner organizations (which has formally existed, but never used in our current setting)?
• In your perspective, what are the meaningful criteria for preventing and mitigating overlaps between Wikimedia movement organizations?