Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/General Support Fund/Whose Knowledge? 2024-2026/Yearly Report (2025)
|
|
Part 1: Understanding your work
[edit]Per the recent update on the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy process, Wikimedia Affiliates that are General Support Fund grantees will fulfill their affiliate reporting requirements through their final or yearly grantee report.
If you are a Wikimedia Affiliate, you will use this form for your affiliate reporting and to address the affiliate health criteria. You do not need to submit a separate report to AffCom. Follow the guidance in the green boxes to report on how you met the corresponding affiliate health criteria.
If you are not a Wikimedia Affiliate, aligning your responses with the affiliate criteria is optional and not required.
1. Please share to what extent your programs, approaches, and strategies contributed to addressing the challenges you shared in your proposal. If they did not contribute as you believed they would, please share what obstacles you faced and what, if anything, you learned from them? (required)
For affiliates, use this space (Question 1.) to address Affiliate Health Criterion 1.1 (Goal delivery). Describe how you actively delivered on mission goals, e.g. content creation.
Over the last year, Whose Knowledge?’s (WK?) work to realise knowledge (or ‘epistemic’) and tech justice led us to prioritise grounding ourselves in community and creativity. In 2025, we collectively experienced an increasing urgency to co-create just futures that resist the ongoing consolidation of power being amassed by Big Tech companies’ investments in military, geopolitical, and national government agendas. In partnership with communities, we led work to co-create and co-resource the pluralistic technological, digital, and leadership alternatives that respond to the urgency and essentiality of challenging epistemic and structural injustices facing our communities. We do this by building solidarities, knowledge bases, practices and infrastructure that uplift the leadership, design, imaginations of Global Majority worldbuilding as an antidote to otherwise hegemonic, commodified, and militarised digital imaginations. Through the course of our work in 2025, we found the following strategies and practices essential to addressing the challenges we work to untangle:
- Centering continuity over newness: in a year when communities around the world faced heightened uncertainty in all aspects of life — from data centered fueled water crises to dramatic shifts in government policies to multi-sectoral funding cuts — we focused on being a consistent and stable partner as a key practice for our partnership and programmatic processes and decision making. For example, our Decolonizing Wikimedia team ran our 8th annual #VisibleWikiWomxn (#VWW) campaign with the theme of “It takes a village, Finding, Strengthening and Sustaining Feminist Community.” By working with this theme, we sought to honor the repetitive and rhythmic work of relationship building in community — while honoring the collective labor required for a community to grow or change or emerge. The campaign continued our tradition of working in community to improve the representativeness of Black, Brown, Indigenous, trans, and non-binary individuals on Wikipedia and the broader internet. We called upon our community to participate in collective resistance to hegemony with us and stay rooted in our collective power. Together, we mobilised to bring more than 20,000 images of our communities to the wikicommons.
- The art and practice of gathering with and in complexity: One of WK?s consistent super powers is our ability to bring people together to discuss, share, and strategize on experiences, practices, and pathways forward. In 2025, we convened frequently as an antidote to despair, and a strategy for connectivity and continued movement. In 2025, we convened and facilitated 10 WK? gatherings across our various programmatic verticals. For example, Our Honouring Our Guardians (HoG) team convened a series of small gatherings and panel discussions with Indigenous women researchers and activists from the South Pacific under a karanga (call) to dream. Starting from a space of strength and imagination, these convenings sought to articulate imagined futures where Indigenous women live and thrive in relationship with land and environment. Through the learnings of this convening process, HoG identified key themes that will anchor a pilot in 2026 that will resource - at multiple levels - a collaborative Indigenous led and co-created project at the nexus of memory, environment, land, and futures with the network they are holding. On the sidelines of Wikimania 2025, our Decolonizing Wikimedia team organized a Feminist Data Soiree to reflect, talk, and do hands-on work around data. The Soiree brought together 25 diverse, intergenerational participants with representations from Africa, Latin America, and Asia, to challenge and reimagine structured data practices through a feminist and decolonial lens. We did this by challenging the foundations of structured data — rooted, by design, in largely Eurocentric, patriarchal, and extractive epistemologies — by transforming the very paradigms that shape how knowledge is validated, represented, and shared. In this context, feminist data practices mean not just adding missing information but also interrogating how and why certain knowledges are excluded or devalued.
- Knowledge Production + Narrative Building: In 2025, the WK? Team published 15 blogs / articles / podcasts. From our Liberatory Archives and Memory (LAMy)’s essay series honoring the conversations, connections, and shared practices that emerged from the three year long UK Memory Worker Community of Practice to the our Language Justice (LJ) Team’s multilingual blog on Bridging the Digital Divide by Building Accessible and Multilingual Tech, we published narratives, alternatives, and research rooted in a diversity of experiences, expertise, and ways of knowing and navigating the world. In this way, we worked to increase the diversity of voices, experiences, and knowledge represented in the internet - offering a multiplicity of pathways forward for our work and our world.
- Redefining power + privilege through language access and community leadership: Because language is one of the most powerful gateways to knowledge, the ability to reproduce language in digital worlds requires considerations of access. Through our Alternative Language Technology and Community-Oriented Language Technologies projects, our Language Justice team has been challenging and continues to challenge inequitable access to and use of language technologies through collaborations with technologists that are mapping, imagining, and prototyping hardwares and softwares that resist hegemony and redefine power. In tandem with our partner organisations and community allies, we are resisting language hegemony by re-imagining technology that operates at the intersection of disability and language justice as critical infrastructure for liberatory presents and futures grounded in epistemic and tech justice, with pilots in South Asia and East Africa.
While our communications work continued over the last year, our strategy shifted away from production towards consolidation. We took a meaningful pause to reflect on the Whose Knowledge? identity, exploring the resonance of how we currently communicate our visual and verbal identities. Through this process, we re-worked our visual identity resulting in a fresh new conceptualisation that communicates the intentionality and creativity of our collective and our work. As part of our consolidation process, we are also well underway in the process of renarrating who we are with clarity and purpose.
2. Is there a plan to build on the key successes you had? If yes, please describe the plan and if no, please share the limitations to do so. For instance, did the activities lead to any new priorities, ideas for activities, or goals for the future? (required)
2026 marks a celebratory and joyful milestone for Whose Knowledge?: we celebrate 10 years of resistances, reimagination, and recentering the plurality of Global Majority knowledges on the internet. 2026 also marks the final year of our current three year strategic plan. This is a year of reflection, re-strategizing, and continuity as we articulate what comes next in the following three years. Functionally, we have a 2026 Annual Plan that articulates our work for this year rooted in our 2024 -2026 strategic priorities. At the heart of our work in 2026 is finding entry points, pathways, and rivermaps to disrupt, challenge, and reimagine the intertwining relationships between Big Tech, Big Knowledge, and the polycrisis of the world.
A core driver for our 2026 programs strategy is the spirit and possibility of relational work. Our 2026 annual plan is embedded within the embodied awareness and directionality of our 2025 experiences and reflections that resulted from our ongoing community archival and language mapping work , community-centred engagement and co-strategising for alternative and representative tech, and netmaking with allies (both new and familiar). Conclusions from our #VWW consultancy have brought into focus the need to articulate the campaign’s relevance to AI, deepen digital security practices across the ecosystem, and establish pathways for our communities to contribute to planning and budgeting.
A big learning — and subsequent theme in 2026 (and beyond) — is the power, possibility, and importance of (autonomous yet interconnected) infrastructure. Network infrastructure (both physically and relationally), organizational infrastructure (and how that expands and constricts resource movement pathways), and narrative infrastructure (who owns and creates the platforms we use to tell our stories, how these stories become the fiber and fabric of the decisions we make and the futures we imagine). Our focus on multi-level infrastructure development is a result of our communities’ learnings over the past few years, and a response to the state of polycrisis that we are called to resist through community activation, participation, and resistance.
3. Please provide a link to reports that detail the activities that took place in the last year. This can include an annual report, Meta pages, and websites. If there are no links available, briefly describe the implemented activities and programs below or upload any files. (required)
For affiliates, use this space (Question 3.) to address Affiliate Health Criteria 2.1 (Affiliate health & resilience), 4.1 (Internal engagement), 4.2 (Community connection), and 4.3 (Partnerships and collaboration):
- Describe your activities engaging new users, new members for your decision-making body(ies), and developing leaders and organizers (2.1).
- Describe your activities creating or hosting spaces to encourage greater collaboration and engagement among your members (4.1).
- Describe how you engage with the contributing community that you serve and/or support (4.2).
- Describe your partnerships with other affiliates or with non-Wikimedia entities (4.3).
Across all our areas of our work - internal and external - our activities can be divided between three strategic anchors:
- Breaking silences of oppression, naming and connecting justice
- Challenging, Resisting, Transforming Power and Privilege
- Dreaming, Reimagining, and prototyping our presents and futures
To this end - we convened over 10 gatherings, and produced and published 15 publications, podcasts, and multimedia stories documenting and amplifying Global Majority led pathways for a more just digital and technological futures. We hosted panels and workshops at human rights and tech conferences around the world — from Rights Conference to the 69th Edition of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) to the EDGE Forum. We prototyped new methodologies of practice: from alternative language technologies to a game on reparations and relational repair to community budgeting processes. Internally, we strengthened and clarified how we use key terms — from community, to convening and care protocols and practices, to participative cross-organizational budgeting. Collectively, our activities have reached audiences known and unknown, with approximately 260 participants directly engaged.
In support of these activities we have attached:
- The summary and learning report from The Data Soiree we hosted in Nairobi before Wikimania 2025
- Excerpts from the Liberatory Archives and Memory UK Community of Practice essay series showcasing progressive approaches to archiving, curatorship, heritage education, community-based storytelling and other aspects of memory work.
- Bridging the Digital Divide by Building Accessible and Multilingual Tech co-produced by our Language Justice Team and Community Advisor (also available in Hindi, Bangla, and Urdu)s
Community Health Affiliate Questions:
In 2025, the primary way that we engaged new users and new members of our decision making bodies (2.1) is through the expansion of our WK? board. Our Whose Knowledge? board moved from a board of three to six people in 2025. Our priority was to build a board that better reflects the plurality of our communities and our many lived and learned expertises. Our board now includes feminist technologists, land and human rights activists, and organizational practitioners from around the world.
As explained in question #1, gathering + convening spaces (4.1), is a key practice we use at WK? in our programmatic and cross-organizational approach. In 2025, we organized and co-hosted a range of convenings, conversations, workshops, panels, and discussions ranging from our Data Soiree at Wikimania 2025, to our roundtable discussion as part of 2025 RightsCon. The final convening to close the pilot of our UK Community of Practice brought together 40 memory workers from diverse backgrounds and institutions and resulted in a series of multi-media essays documenting memory and archival practices beyond the hegemony of traditional institutions.Through our convening work we have learned to 1) center multilinguality in practice — every event is held in at least 2 languages and we account for the time it takes to translate across languages in our planning process 2) adopt community care practices that support the spaces accessibility, sense of belonging, and 3) integrate active and informed consent processes.
We are on a continual learning journey about how we engage and talk about our WK? community (4.2). In support of this, we continued to develop our community engagement protocol in 2025. Three key strategies we used to transparently engage our community included our advisory circles, participatory budgeting processes, and co-designed programmatic priorities / agendas. In our work on the idea of community, we have learned that our community is necessarily diverse and highly varied. The nature of our work as a weaver across tech and knowledge spaces implicitly means we work with people from varied professional and lived experiences — from funders, to technologists, to activists, to artists (and many who hold multiple and varied positionalities all at once). (4.3). Collaboration and partnerships are therefore central to the way we work, serving as a foundational strategy in programmatic work: each of our programmes is currently engaged in collaborative / partnership-based activities. Holding the plurality of these positionalities with honesty requires that we develop a programmatic and organizational pacing that centers relationality as the guidelines for how quickly we move. In our experience, while relationality might mean we move “slower” at first, it means that when we move we move with consistency, effectiveness, and strength.
4. Are you interested in sharing what you achieved or learned this year with the wider community through different peer learning programs (e.g. Let's Connect program, Diff)? (optional)
Yes, we have already posted some of our insights in collaboration with our partners, including a webinar posted to YouTube and two reflective posts to Diff (post 1,post 2). This year, we plan to share more learnings on Diff and also encourage our communities to share as well. We have been invited to join the Capacity Exchange initiative and we will explore the platform and its possibilities in 2026. Let’s Connect is always in our radar and we are interested in finding opportunities to exchange knowledge in this program as well.
5. Did you collect feedback from your community or target groups on how the activities implemented impacted them? If yes, please attach/provide information on the results (e.g. community surveys, stories, impact booklets/reports, interviews with partner institutions, etc). Did you collect other impact-specific data? (required)
For affiliates, the response to Question 5. also partially addresses Affiliate Health Criteria 4.1 (Internal Engagement), 4.2 (Community Connection), or 4.3 (Partnerships & collaboration), where applicable.
Yes, we did collect feedback from our community on how our activities impacted them. Depending on their work, each program takes a contextually and relationally relevant approach to data collection; for example, some programs may use post-convening feedback surveys while others may prefer more interactive qualitative methods.
In 2025, we led regular conversations with partners, allies, community members and peers across our activities, reflecting on good practices and ways to move forward based on learnings (eg. our LJ pilot project on ALT and Sovereign Language Tech, with internal specific focus on accessibility, safety and security). This was extended internally through our feminist strategic planning process involving our advisor circles for each program, peers, and community members. For example, our Liberatory Archives and Memory (LAMy) program’s current knowledge production series is a result of community-identified priority activities which emerged from a series of convenings they hosted between 2024-2025. Based on the learnings in 2024, the programmatic course for 2025 has been adapted. For instance, we have grown a deep appreciation for the need to see digital and archival security as a practice of care that protects our communities, archives, and collective memory — not institutions. Likewise, our Honouring Our Guardians program has had a series of conversations with Indigenous community members on programmatic weaving.Through these conversations a strong preference - and need - for flexible resources for collaborative, Indigenous-led projects emerged. This learning is the foundation for a series of experimental pilots the HoG team is facilitating over 2026 (and beyond) at the intersection of Indigenity, Land, Climate, and Technology.
Alongside these qualitative, story-based methods, we also carried out direct and wider post-activity surveys with our communities that inform our planning and implementation processes. For instance, the Decolonising Wikimedia team’s Data Soiree event was carefully documented to capture in-the-room experiences, while a post-event survey directly engaged participants to deepen insights that we have shared with our broader community.
Internally, we process and digest the impact of our work through programmatic sharebacks on programmatic activities, challenges and possibilities — all of which team members reflexively identify during the activities organized, and events in which we participate. These internal reflexivity practices — coupled with the quantitative and qualitative data collection processes referenced above — inform our strategic directions and planning processes, and nurture cross-team mutual learning.
6. During the fund period, did your efforts do any of the following? (required):
For affiliates, the response to Question 6. also partially addresses Affiliate Health Criterion 2.2 (Diversity balance).
- 6.1 Bring in participants from the following groups: women, people with disabilities, indigenous groups , LGBTQ+ groups, speakers of minority languages, underrepresented geographical regions (ESEAP, LATAM, SSA, MENA, SA)
- 6.2 Develop content about the following underrepresented topics or groups of people: women, people with disabilities, indigenous groups, LGBTQ+ groups, speakers of minority languages, underrepresented geographical regions (ESEAP, LATAM, SSA, MENA, SA)
- 6.3 Support the retention of: Editors, Organizers, Partnerships, other
7. What, if any, effective tactics or approaches can you share that worked well when dealing with the programs under points 6.1-6.3 that you selected? (optional)
- Consent as foundational: We continue to reiterate the value of consent as a dynamic and ongoing process. Importantly, consent is foundational to participants’ ability to feel seen, respected, and safe to be themselves, share bravely, and engage deeply. Last year, we extended our practice of consent to publications, enhancing our consent process for featuring guest contributors in our publications.
- Community engagement as essential to decision-making: Everything about the shape of our 2026 programmatic and organisational strategy has been the result of an evolving and recurring practice of community engagement. This starts as small as our internal, organizational community being integrated into organisational decision-making — especially when decisions have long-term, sizeable, or irreversible impact. At the programmatic levels, we extend this practice to our partners, allies, compañeras, and beyond. This process allows us to make decisions as a collective, strengthening our alignment on priorities we hope to collectively pursue.
- Security as care: Care has always been foundational to our ways of working. Last year, we reinforced the value of emphasising financial, digital, and physical security through more intentional strategising around each area. For instance, in relation to financial security, we deepened our practice of collective care by conducting a series of intentional, vulnerable conversations around mitigating financial risk in 2026 and beyond. To strengthen our digital security, we have begun the work to bring on a consultant to design and strengthen our digital infrastructure. We have also evaluated team travel plans and risks, leading to us taking a more cautious approach towards international travel, particularly through high-risk territories.
8. If you developed partnerships, which of the following factors most helped you to build partnerships? Please pick a MAXIMUM of the three most relevant factors (optional):
Permanent staff outreach, Volunteers from our communities, Partners proactive interest
Part 2: Metrics for Year 2
[edit]| Wikimedia Metrics | Target (Year 2) | Results (Year 2) | Comments and tools used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of all participants | 450 | 1149 | This number is tracked via registration, participation, and attendance documents maintained by each program team. |
| Number of all editors | 100 | 542 | 9.2 – 9.3: Tools used: Eventmetrics, Dashboard, Participation forms.
9.4: No data was collected on retained editors due to limitations in tracking tools. |
| Number of new editors | N/A | 297 | |
| Number of retained editors | N/A | ||
| Number of all organizers | 20 | 30 | 9.5: Count of organizers of the Feminist Time campaign - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Event:Tiempo_feminista_para_editar_Wikipedia/Resultados
Internal records of VisibleWikiWomen support local organizers. 9.6 For new organisers, we checked internal records. |
| Number of new organizers | N/A | 1 |
| Wikimedia project | Target - Number of created pages (Year 2) | Target - Number of improved pages (Year 2) | Result - Number of created pages (Year 2) | Result - Number of improved pages (Year 2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wikipedia | 224 | 4629 | ||
| Wikimedia Commons | 1789 | |||
| Wikidata | 10 | 367 | ||
| Wiktionary | ||||
| Wikisource | ||||
| Wikimedia Incubator | ||||
| Translatewiki | ||||
| MediaWiki | ||||
| Wikiquote | ||||
| Wikivoyage | ||||
| Wikibooks | ||||
| Wikiversity | ||||
| Wikinews | ||||
| Wikispecies | ||||
| Wikifunctions or Abstract Wikipedia |
Tool used and comments (optional):
11. Did you set other quantitative and qualitative targets for your project (other metrics)? (required): Yes
11.1. Other Metrics.
In your application, you outlined some other open metrics that you would like to measure. Please fill out the achieved results for each of the open metrics you defined.
| Other Metrics | Description | Target | Results | Comments | Methodology |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transformative Stories | Positive and meaningful impact of bringing minoritised knowledges to Wikimedia projects documented through storytelling centered and grounded in experiences and embodied knowledge of participants and their communities. Shared with our communities via WK? comms channels (website, social media, newsletter, etc.), and our meta page. | 3 | 3 | 1. Transformative Story #1 - #VisibleWikiWomxn Feminist Data Soiree Summary Report - The #VisibleWikiWomen Feminist Data Soiree, held on August 5, 2025, in Nairobi, Kenya, brought together twenty-five diverse and intergenerational participants from across the Global Majority with representation from Africa, Latin America, and Asia. The Data Soiree Report is a comprehensive summary of our event, which captures insightful discussions, key takeaways, and inspiring ideas shared by our wonderful participants.
2. Transformative Story #2: #VisibleWikiWomxn at the 69th session of the Commission for the Status of Women (CSW) - The 69th Session of CSW was an important milestone - 30 years of the Beijing Platform for Action. In March 2025, generations of feminists from all over the world gathered in New York City for the 69th session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW69) and to reflect, commemorate, and celebrate 30 years of the Beijing Platform for Action. These are the pictures of some of the women and non-binary folks at CSW69, especially those from the global majority. They were taken in meetings, on the streets, on panels, and everywhere in between to visibilize and document a historical moment for the feminist movement. Some of the people were in Beijing in 1995. 3. Transformative Story #3: Feminist Action and Community Against Algorithmic Misogyny - As part of the global 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Based Violence, Whose Knowledge? launched #16TranslationDays - an online translation campaign that worked with activists around the world to translate articles and critical information on Gender Based Violence into more languages. At the start of the campaign, the Wikipedia article on Online Gender Based Violence only existed in six languages (despite the 358 language versions of Wikipedia that exist). We worked with feminists around the world to expand the translation of this critical information by adding or improving GBV info on Wikipedia. Contributors to #16TranslationDays expanded the availability of reliable GBV info in Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese, and Luganda. As part of this campaign, we also brought images for the femicide exhibition hosted by Usikimye in Kenya to the wikicommons. |
Number of stories published on the WK? blog, social media platforms; Data Soiree feedback surveys, post-activities debriefs and reflections, summary reports, in-person conversations and private communications; internal trackers of article contributions and improvements |
| Sustainable allyship building | Deeper understanding on how sustainable allyship building and practices work for WK? & Wikimedia communities, including strengths, opportunities, challenges, etc. Shared with our communities via WK? comms channels (website, social media, newsletter, etc.), and our meta page. | 3 | 3 | 1. Creation of internal Whose Knowledge? Community Engagement practices + processes - through an internally facilitated process, the WK? team articulated who our community is, and what it means to be an organization that exists to serve our pluralistic communities. Key learnings through this work include 1) that our community is necessarily diverse, cross and breaking silos in ways that allow alliances to form across movements and sectors
3. Solidarity Infrastructure Collective: The Whose Knowledge? Resources & Reparations Co-Leads joined the Solidarity Infrastructure Collective - a consortium of people around the world working on land ownership for movements as a proxy to building power. Through the collective, the RnR team joined colleagues at Dalan Fund, Weaving Liberations, and Numun Fund to host a workshop at the EDGE Forum on “What do we leave when the grant ends?” . Key Learnings and takeaways from the session were published in Alliance Magazine: https://www.alliancemagazine.org/blog/solidarity-infrastructures-what-do-we-leave-behind-when-the-grant-ends-reflecting-on-our-session-at-edge/ |
Mapping exercises completed during workshops + convenings; post-activities debriefs and reflections; in-person conversations and private communications. |
| Collection of Resources, Tactics & Practices | Community pool of resources, tactics and practices around knowledge justice curated by Wikimedia community. Shared with our communities via WK? comms channels (website, social media, newsletter, etc.), and our meta page. | 3 | 3 | 1. Recording of the panel discussion “El tiempo que hacemos juntas es tiempo feminista” (The time we make together is feminist time), that was part of the Tiempo Feminista campaign. In this space for reflection, a group of women and gender non-conforming people come together to think about how we build collective memory, especially in digital territories, where our records, archives, and struggles are preserved. The panelists and participants (wikimedians, memory makers, journalists and activists from Latin America) discussed how our stories are told in the digital space without being controlled by large corporations or censored by authoritarian governments.
|
Number of resources published on the WK? blog, social media platforms |
| N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Part 3: Skill Development / Capacity Building
[edit]12. Reflecting on your programmatic (external) and organizational (internal) work, did your grant support you to undergo any skill development that made a difference to your success? If yes, what skill was developed, and how did it lead to success? (e.g. received coaching on public speaking, attended training on nonviolent communication, hosted professional development conversations on leadership, learned and used a new tool for project management, etc.)? Can you share any materials? (required)
For affiliates, use this space (Question 12.) to address Affiliate Health Criteria 2.2 (Diversity balance) and 3.1 (Diverse, Skilled, and Accountable Leadership):
- Describe actions taken to prioritize gender balance in affiliate leadership, as well as any areas of diversity relevant to your affiliate's context (2.2).
- Describe the management, financial, or other leadership skills of your affiliate leaders. If you have a succession plan, please include it here (3.1).
- Describe any training or skill development (as outlined in the question above) (3.1).
- Incorporate into the annual report a disclosure of conflict of interests (if any) from the leadership (3.1).
Yes, over the course of this year we undertook skill development that advanced and deepened our work. Our skill and capacity development at WK? happens in two primary ways: 1) training and collaboration with external facilitators and thought leaders; and 2) internal, self-led and facilitated skill exchanges and learning sessions. In 2025, we participated in both kinds of learning. For example, internally, we worked collectively to deepen our participative budgeting skills on a programmatic and cross-organizational level. Through this work, we expanded our shared comfort with developing and managing budgets, discussing money, and coordinating our programming resulting in increased cross-organizational accountability and responsibility to our organizational resources (and functionally stronger skills at tracking revenue and expenditures). Externally, we convened a group of WK? advisors to support us in our strategic analysis and sensemaking of key global events and trends — especially in relation to AI and Big Tech financial flows.
Affiliate Health Criteria:
2.2 - Diversity Balance - In 2025, we expanded our board with the goal of a board even more deeply reflective of the communities we exist to serve, and work with. This resulted in our board expanding from three members, to six, representing a wide range of communities, contexts, countries, and expertise.
3.1 - Diverse, Skilled, and Accountable Leadership - In 2025, based on learnings from the previous year, we redesigned our internal leadership structures. Our work together led us to re-imagine and more intentionally practice shared / distributed leadership, resulting in the expansion of the Operational Leadership Team (OLT) to include a Resources & Reparations Co-Lead and one programs team Co-Lead from Decolonising Wikimedia, and the establishment of a parallel Programmatic Committee (PC) to hold programmatic strategy. The goal in creating these two parallel spaces was to more clearly identify seats of internal power and decision making, and to recognize the implicit leadership work of our programs team in organizational operations and impact. Through the PC, we are hoping to deepen cross-programmatic collaboration. The revised OLT structure recognizes the necessary close coordination between programs and operations in our healthy and sustainable functioning.
In addition, during this grant period, our Executive Director took a long-planned sabbatical. In preparation for this sabbatical, her roles were divided between teams, resulting in existing team members having the opportunity to gain new / augment existing perspectives and skills (e.g. financial control processes, fundraising functions, and programmatic strategy work).
13. What is one capacity/skill area that you would like to focus on for the next year? And how do you plan to achieve this capacity? (required)
The primary skill / capacity area we want to work on in 2026 is liberatory infrastructure building. Our work has long used prototyping, knowledge production, and resource gathering as strategies for convening people together and challenging exclusionary narratives and processes of digital erasure. However, we are increasingly interested and focused on how we can link this work to broader ecosystem infrastructure building and weaving. For the year ahead we are going to focus on both infrastructures of knowledge and memory and infrastructures of resources and resilience, and through both, ensure that our peoples and environments continue to be affirmed and supported.
- Infrastructures of knowledge and memory: we will expand the capacities of our communities and movements to transform Wikipedia and its structured data, connect climate and tech justice through Indigenous feminist resistance, gather translocal feminist memories and knowledges, design multi-lingual and multi-modal tech for accessibility with disability rights activists, and prototype “small” or community-tech as a counterpoint to AI’s “large language models”. We will do this by testing the notion of a Whose Knowledge? Knowledge and Tech Justice (de)“school” through a consolidation of our current tools and practices; first internally, before working with our friends and allies to offer it more publicly.
- Infrastructures of resources and resilience: we will experiment with supporting our ecosystem through our financial infrastructure, by learning from our current small fiscal sponsorship of a queer Global Majority feminist group, and expanding fiscal sponsorship offerings to 3-4 similar groups. We will also be testing resource mobilization through coalition or consortium proposals with partner organizations and identifying an alternative resourcing source beyond grants.
14. If you have additional information or reflections that don’t fit into the above sections, please write them here. Use the space below to upload any additional documents that would be useful to understand your report.
For affiliates, also use this section (Question 14) to fulfill the Affiliate Health Criteria requirements.
- Describe and link to any public-facing documentation for affiliate governance, including affiliate leadership and membership with a breakdown of the demographics; how elections are conducted; how conflicts of interest are declared; and how decisions are made and communicated (2.2, 2.3, 3.1).
- Describe and link to any public-facing documentation for activities incorporating, promoting awareness about, or enforcing the Universal Code of Conduct in your affiliate's activities (3.3).
- Describe and link to any public-facing documentation for internal membership engagement, such as notes from your regular meetings and how you communicate to or involve your membership (4.1).
As described above, WK? Expanded our board in 2025, completing a 1.5 year process of governance review and board recruitment. The new board is larger, and more representative of the composition of our communities. (2.2) The board is composed of six women from four continents. We assure good governance and communication in the following ways: The WK? board meets on a quarterly basis. During this meeting, the Operational Leadership Team (OLT) shares financial + programmatic updates. In addition, members of the board have the option to be involved in more specific programmatic + operational work such as financial control and management, fundraising, and programmatic activities relevant to their areas of interest and expertise. Key takeaways from the board meeting are shared with the team.
2.3. Each of our programmatic teams has similarly engaged in community-centred sharebacks with partners or community stakeholders. As shared above, our DW team has specifically shared learnings on Diff and YouTube, while our LAMy team has published content on their project-based site, and our LJ team has shared their work via our blog and the University of Edinburgh's School of Social and Political Science blog.
3.1 - Our organisational Leadership Team (OLT) has been actively evaluating its infrastructural design to map whose perspectives are and are not being represented. This process serves two critical functions: 1) building a more representative and accountable infrastructure that centres the internal WK? community’s needs with care and curiosity; and 2) creating alignment between purpose and form to ensure its sustained functionality and effectiveness.
3.3 - Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) - In the preceding year, we incorporated the Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct to our Brave and Safe Space Policy (BSSP). This year, we continued relying upon this foundational document to inform how we convene and gather our communities. In this way, we are committed to enforce the UCoC, but also to intentionally promote a safe and comfortable space for gender diverse and non-conforming people, for femmes, for women, and for people who are often marginalized in mainstream and western constructs of personhood. Our principles of Love, Respect and Solidarity are at the core of every event, and we model these practices and invite others to do so.
Part 4: Financial reporting
[edit]For affiliates, also use this section (Part 4: Financial reporting) to address Affiliate Health Criterion 3.2 (Financial & Legal Compliance).
| Description | Amount spent (USD) |
|---|---|
| Personnel costs | 28794 |
| Operational costs | 860 |
| Programmatic costs | 178346 |
| Total (Year 2) | 208000 |
| Other revenue | 2012685 |
| Remaining funds (Year 2) | N/A |
15. Please state the total amount spent from this fund in your local currency. (required)
208000 USD
16. Please provide an overview of the amount spent from this fund in the following budget categories in your local currency. (required)
- Operational costs: 860 USD
- Programmatic costs: 178346 USD
- Staff and contractor costs: 28794 USD
17. Did you have any other revenue sources (e.g. other funding, membership contributions, donations)? (required): Yes
- 17.1. Provide the total amount received from other revenue sources in your local currency. (required): 2128755 USD
- 17.2. Provide the total amount spent from other revenue sources in your local currency. (required): 2012685 USD
18. Provide a financial report document which will provide the details of funds received and spent in the currency of your fund. (required)
- Upload Documents, Templates, and Files.
- (FINAL) WMF 2025 Financial Report.xlsx
- Report funds received and spent, if template not used.
18.2. If you have not already done so in your financial spending report, provide information on changes in the budget in relation to your original proposal. (optional)
N/A
19. Do you have any unspent funds from this funding?: No
20. Final confirmations (required)
- 20.1. Are you in compliance with the terms outlined in the fund agreement? You must be in compliance with relevant tax laws and regulations restricting the use of the Funds as outlined in the grant agreement. In summary, this is to confirm that the funds were used in alignment with the Wikimedia Foundation mission and for charitable/nonprofit/educational purposes.
- Yes
- 20.2. Are you in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations as outlined in the grant agreement?
- Yes
- 20.3. Are you in compliance with provisions of the United States Internal Revenue Code (“Code”), and with relevant tax laws and regulations restricting the use of the Funds as outlined in the grant agreement? In summary, this is to confirm that the funds were used in alignment with the WMF mission and for charitable/nonprofit/educational purposes.
- Yes
This is an automatically generated Meta-Wiki page. The page was copied from Fluxx, the web service of Wikimedia Foundation Funds, where the user has submitted their report. Please do not make any changes to this page because all changes will be removed after the next update. Use the discussion page for your feedback. The page was created by CR-FluxxBot.