Grants talk:Project/MSIG/WMB/Capacity Exchange 2023-2025

Overall Positive Feedback

This proposal addresses a genuine and long-standing need and demonstrates evidence of careful thought and planning.

The application is well-structured and provides a clear objective and scope. The focus is clear about Capacity Exchange on serving as an information and connecting tool to make capacity building more systemic and efficient, rather than a comprehensive knowledge management system or a solution to all capacity building needs. Additionally, the proposal is aligned with the Movement Strategy initiative that it seeks to advance, and builds upon previously funded work.

The potential impact is evident, and it is also clear that ensuring adoption of the tool as the primary information and connecting system will require collaboration with various stakeholders, including the future Council, hubs, affiliates, and the leadership within the movement. This will ensure that the tool is a public good in the Movement.

Additionally, it is clear that the proposal's success is measurable as the tool is used and tested, and the scaled approach outlined in the proposal is likely to be effective. The proposal provides a clear and valuable solution to fill gaps in the capacity building process while avoiding duplication of efforts. Kudos to the team working on this. YPam (WMF) (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@YPam (WMF): We appreciate this positive feedback and the support you have provided us over these last months. One of the strengths of this proposal is its incredible capacity to engage people. This includes the members of the current committee who have been working on the platform voluntarily for two years! We like the expression you have used, as we truly think this proposal is building "a public good in the Movement". We have provided answers to the feedback for improvement below. Thank you! –Joalpe (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback For Improvement

This feedback contains critical questions for the project team to strengthen this project plan.

Key considerations

• The working team should review the reception, concerns, and engagement of similar platforms to think ahead about potential community pushback or hindrances to engagement. We saw some pushback from using MS Forum as it was a separate platform, so a major question for the team to ponder is - "what will be the uptake for this?"

We have taken into consideration the reception, concerns, and engagement of non-wiki tools and platforms in the design of our Risk Management Matrix, where we have considered potential scenarios of community (dis)engagement.

• In terms of reception, the uptake is to rely on established networks of the Wikimedia Movement to present the Capacity Exchange and gather feedback from different local communities. We have experimented with this during our pilot (testing with the Let's Connect program and a test during the Berlin summit).
• Regarding the concerns, the uptake is to be supported by protocols for effective feedback reception, in which community suggestions, questions, and critiques are channeled through constant communication to the project team and used for continuous quality improvement and/or be properly answered.
• As to engagement, we are aware of potential pushback or hindrances are considering potential consequences and impacts of community disengagement, from localized to generalized scale. In the light of this, we have preemptively pointed to a variety of prevention and mitigation measures.

The base formula assuring uptake regarding reception, concerns, and engagement of a separate platform is the development and implementation of an agile and participatory methodology, through which we will establish a permanent outreach action and continuous reassessment routine for the engagement and feedback protocols. In this process, Wikimedian communities and key stakeholders will be able to supervise the platform development from the bottom up. The expected alignment between Capacity Exchange and key stakeholders is described in our Roles & Responsibilities document. Furthermore, we are eager to study possibilities of on-wiki incorporation of discussion and feedback around Capacity Exchange, as well as its future linkage, especially to meta.wikimedia.org.

• It will be wise for the working team to review the reception, concerns, and engagement of similar platforms (MS Forum, WikiLearn) to learn about potential community pushback or hindrances to engagement. Has this been considered, and if so what are plans are in place to ensure success?

We have considered the potential community pushback or hindrances to engagement, as mentioned in the previous point. The plans in place to decrease perceived risk are: preemptive consideration of potential scenarios of community (dis)engagement; and effective implementation of an agile and participatory methodology. Likewise decreasing perceived risk, establishing trust is a fundamental part of ensuring the Capacity Exchange success. The first process is guided by our Risk Management Matrix, intended to be periodically updated. The latter builds upon the Wikimedia Movement spirit and strategy, transparent in our Roles & Responsibilities document. Wikimedian communities rely daily on several external platforms (such as social media integrated chats, Google Workspace apps, etc.) for many purposes, capacity building included. These instances’ values, protocols, and licenses lack compatibility with our movement, but pragmatically respond to communication and documentation needs. A main characteristic of Capacity Exchange is to be ideated, built, and run by Wikimedians, being not only compatible with the Movement in terms of open licensing, standards and values, but ultimately aligned to the Strategy. We aim to co-develop a user-friendly platform that effectively supports and benefits ongoing capacity-building initiatives, emerging communities, and new people joining the movement. Proposed to respond to an existing and urgent global need, the platform intends to serve as an informational and connection tool that is complementary to other capacity -building initiatives, as well as to meta.wikimedia.org. We are convinced that Capacity Exchange will be adopted because it will ensure the participatory governance and collaborative design of the platform through the wiki way.

• It is uncertain whether a decentralized model of peer learning could work, and questions arise about whether a peer learning model has proven effective, especially for one-off sessions or superficial engagements.

A global decentralized model of peer learning and support has not been implemented in our movement so far, thus the uncertainty. Yet, this model is the most suitable for the Wikimedia Movement, whose communities are diverse and permeated by inequalities.

We have a socio-technical challenge regarding skill development, and the Capacity Exchange aims to partially solve the technical problem. Capacity Exchange will be part of a larger capacity building infrastructure that has already been envisioned in the recommendations (32. Global approach for local skill development - gathering data, matching peers, mentorship, recognition) and is currently being developed by a number of initiatives focused on capacity building. In our vision, we believe “Capacity Sharing” comes before “Capacity Building” and peer-learning is the ideal approach to capacity exchange. Decentralized peer-learning is the opposite of centralized knowledge transfer. Decentralization means a horizontal, rhizomatic, bottom-up connection between multiple centers and people. The centralization of capacity-building could lead to cultural singularization and suppression of sharing, both consequences highly unfruitful to the nature and values of our Movement. Generally speaking, peer-learning is one of the most effective and proven practices to exchange skills and knowledge. Aside from being rooted in decades of educational theory and practice, the peer-learning approach aligns with Wikimedian collaborative values. Particularly in the Wikimedia Movement, accumulated experience with volunteer training shows that latent learning occurs in highly interactive spaces. Human interaction and co-creation flourish in less centralized and/or formal instances. By being a reciprocal process in which two or more participants learn together and from each other, peer-learning builds collaborative and leadership skills. Furthermore, we have some evidence of success with the excellent work of other capacity-building initiatives, such as the Let’s Connect program. In our view, Capacity Exchange is the needed instrument for the optimization of these sister initiatives, providing a platform to match Wikimedians across the world; support and deepen peer connections; and pave the way for the documentation, management, and linkage of all the accumulated experience.

• A recommendation for improving peer learning experiences is to focus on the depth and detail of the sessions. While peer learning offers valuable opportunities for connections, conversation, and informal mentorship, there may be room for improvement in terms of ensuring robust knowledge and skill acquisition. For example, if someone is seeking to learn a specific skill like conflict transformation, it may be helpful to structure peer learning engagements in a way that allows for more detailed and in-depth exploration of the topic. This could include providing resources or activities that help participants practice the skill in real-world situations, or encouraging group members to share their own experiences and strategies for navigating similar challenges. By prioritizing the quality and depth of peer learning sessions, we can create more meaningful and impactful learning experiences for all participants

We agree. On the one hand, we intend to develop with the support of key stakeholders resources and eventually training on how to run successful peer-learning sessions, so that sessions are meaningful for participants. On the other hand, we expect the Capacity Exchange peer-learning experience to be complementary to other means of capacity-building: resources, hands-on activities and structured programs. As we have noted in our Roles and Responsibilities, the CapX platform is one part of a broader set of initiatives for capacity building in our movement, and robust knowledge and complex skill acquisition are possibly best acquired when participants combine experiences in diverse capacity-building settings that need to be coordinated, as you have noticed. We commend WMF’s Let’s Connect Program which has begun to build evidence of successful session formats for peer support, and hope that this program will continue and be closely linked with the Capacity Exchange.

Governance and sustainability:

• How does the team intend to respond to and inculcate the need for global alignment on this project. There is a potential need for social, political, and governance engagements (even lobbying?) for full adoption by all stakeholders. Has the team considered ways of doing this in parallel to ensure success, and if so, please consider sharing a brief plan for that.

In our Roles & Responsibilities we have established some critical activities regarding the needs for global alignment and social, political, and governance engagement, for adoption by key stakeholders:

• Development of a global engagement plan, built upon existing local and regional networks of both affiliate and informal groups;
• Periodical reassessment and update of the Risk Management Matrix, especially community engagement and governance;
• Deepening or establishment of collaborative connections with key-stakeholders, i.e., initiatives oriented towards capacity-building and skills development: Let’s Connect, Leadership Development, Volunteer Supporters Network, Community Capacity Development, etc; and local/regional initiatives such as Calibra; as well as projects, working groups, training courses, and hubs that might emerge along the way;
• Community consultations targeting local communities, affiliates, and key stakeholders (such as surveys, focus groups, and listening gatherings); designed and run by the Capacity Exchange Program Manager.

Community Outreach facilitation will be designed to localize and contexualize community engagement. The Community Outreach also includes online and on-site participation in key events of the Wikimedia Movement. Additionally, global, regional, and local activities will be conducted to promote the initiative. Our main strategy is to articulate engagement from the bottom up, establishing global interconnection from local and regional instances and conversing with on-going actions and initiatives. The early phase of this strategy will prioritize the engagement of all stakeholders directly involved in capacity-building in our movement. Later, these parties will eventually help us connect with other groups and individuals.

• In addition to the need for alignment, it is essential to work with all capacity-building stakeholders to have a systemic view of how this will operate and complement each other, ensuring that it is not a siloed design. The proposal demonstrates that the team recognizes this challenge, it will be good to have clarity on how this will happen.

We agree it is essential to work with capacity building stakeholders in the Wikimedia Movement, so that the Capacity Exchange platform is informed by and designed also with inputs and feedback from these stakeholders. In the document on Roles and Responsibilities, we have listed project stakeholders. Once the project starts, we plan to engage with capacity building initiatives to work together on developing the necessary governance for the Capacity Exchange platform. The integration between the initiatives depends on the shared construction of communication channels and a governance infrastructure among the capacity building stakeholders. Our team will work on this construction along with partner stakeholders. Specifically for the platform governance, we intend to expand the Advisory Committee, including members of movement capacity building initiatives, engaging these stakeholders more directly to the platform's consultative and deliberative processes, so that their needs and visions are taken into consideration in the development of the platform. Once the governance is established and as soon as we have a functioning beta version, we hope to count on the stakeholders’ involvement for our outreach plan. We understand that their involvement in outreach is key to the success of the Capacity Exchange platform, as each initiative works with specific community networks and that outreach is more effective when activated in these networks.

• How is this project team planning to ensure sustainability? The OER host must be sustainable, but it is not currently active, so unforeseen future costs may arise that are not being considered in the software's sustainability and future customization. More clarity is needed regarding this.

We plan to ensure the Capacity Exchange’s socio-technical sustainability by fomenting the evolution and persistence of community contribution and engagement, so that the investment is not limited to a one-round product. After the two years of development and implementation, the initiative will require sustained financial investment from Wikimedia Movement funds. It is expected that the technical housing of the platform will be decided in the second year of funding, depending on factors that are currently unknown. The OER platform was a prototype for our pilot test, then maintained by a developer whose time was donated by WMDE. In this phase, we achieved many changes with minimal effort and resources. The base code allows growth, and its branch on Github is available to be built upon. The platform is up and running on the Wikimedia Cloud service. The transition to the new Github repositories and administrative rights will involve both WMDE and WMB resources and will hopefully also include training and mentorship.s. Experienced on the different aspects of the project, the Advisory Committee will assist the new project team and help the success of the next stage. In the future, the Capacity Exchange code might be housed at WMB or another suitable regional or thematic hub. Once we have the resources and a fully engaged team, we’ll be able to plan more effectively and properly build the foundations for the software's technical sustainability and future customization.

• overall, is it clear to the team that the governance of the tool must be discussed to ensure its sustainability and that the information/data provided respects privacy while facilitating decision-making within the program and evaluating the tool's use and results, in terms of opening opportunities for peer connections and skills development.

The CapX platform is to be developed with the communities, as community engagement is the sole means of ensuring uptake, sustainability and success. As we have noted in our Roles and Responsibilities, we intend to actively connect with sister initiatives focusing on capacity-building to coordinate with them and other stakeholders on how to establish governing protocols (ie, safety, privacy), set up decision making processes and assess the tool's use and results.

• It will be good to provide some more clarity regarding the existing capacities on the team and the advisory board to be able to delegate or steer the project. Because the proposal relies heavily on securing others to carry out the work, it raises concerns about whether the hired team has the capability and know-how to do this work and whether the advisory board team has the ability to delegate/steer well.

We have provided detailed descriptions of team positions in our Roles and Responsibilities document. Wiki Movimento Brasil is responsible for selecting the team in consultation with the Advisory Committee. The team will be integrated into the Wiki Movimento Brasil’s management routine for coordination, interlocution and reporting. Andi Inácio has agreed to join the team as the program officer. We have already received an expression of interest from a developer that has worked with Wiki Movimento Brasil on other projects. Current Advisory Committee members have led the project since its inception – going back to the period in which the Strategy was being written – and are movement leaders from diverse contexts. As soon as the proposal is approved, we expect to expand the committee and invite key stakeholders to join it.

Effectiveness and budget:

• The budget should be flexible enough to increase the team or make changes if necessary. They may need more full-time developers and less budget for travel. The proposal plans to hire a program manager (60%), developer (50%), and outreach facilitators (30%), and while this team can build a platform in two years, it may be too stretched out capacity wise.

We have made changes in the budget based on this feedback. We have added a second developer to the team, and we have reduced outreach expenses, including travel.

• The team should be more agile and iterative, and a team with more than one part-time developer fully dedicated to this project should be brought together to launch something sooner.

We have made changes in the project based on this feedback. We have added a second developer to the team.

Platform technology and development:

• It is essential to figure out the mechanics of the experience simultaneously to the platform being built, and the focus should not be solely technical.

We intend to employ an agile methodology for software development. Such an approach allows better acceptance and response to ongoing changes, especially regarding requirements volatility and unpredictable challenges. When predictive and planned approaches fail, an agile methodology enables the identification, analysis, and uptake of different experience mechanics simultaneously and intrinsically to the product development. While envisioning and planning the Capacity Exchange, our focus is socio-technical, rather than solely technical. Ahead of the project management, Wiki Movimento Brasil aims to re-imagine the socio-technical infrastructure of the Wikimedia Movement, guided by an utopian-realist style. In this regard, technical problems and/or solutions are interlinked to the failure or success of collaborative and interactive practices. The consolidation of such socio-infrastructure takes into account the knowledge equity strategic direction and community health guidelines.

• How does the team intend to mitigate potential risks like feature creep. It would be great to see a more detailed plan of what is intended to be achieved feature-wise when in these two years. Please consider providing a clear definition of the minimum result of this followup grant, which tasks are priorities, which are nice to have and what might be out of scope? YPam (WMF) (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

For reference, we have produced a Risk Management Matrix we expect to update periodically. Feature creep might indeed be an issue at some point but current projections include a lot of flexibility with optional inputs, so that it is neither a short nor foreseeable mid term situation. Moreover, features will be built based on the existing prototype and with inputs from a broader Advisory Committee. Most of complexity is actually in translations, cross-cultural interpretation and communication of basics, but this is likely to be initially addressed with triangular approach and facilitators doing region-focused research, outreach, promotion and support, before they are effectively proposing updates and even later new features in technical setup. --Joalpe (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Budget update

For recording purposes, as agreed on the 24 January 2025, at a meeting with JStephenson (WMF), I share the link for the updated Capacity Exchange Budget spreadsheet. We altered outdated lines in “Travel budget” (i.e. “Wikimania 2024”, “Wikimedia Summit 2024”, and “Unforeseen expenses”); “Travel budget” First Year remaining costs (i.e. “GLAM Meeting 2023”; and “Community Meeting 2024”); and outdated Second Year “Translation Services” line, due to the integration to TranslateWiki platform. The amount was incorporated into the Second Year “Software developer” line (in “Personnel”). With this extra personnel budget, we can work to deliver a better tool by the end of the project. AJurno (WMB) (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this update. This change is approved given the clear justification and needs the project has. JStephenson (WMF) (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Amendment to the grant

Dear @Jessica, we would like to ask that the project be extended for another year (until June 3rd, 2026) to consolidate the partnership and integration with Let's Connect, deliver an even better tool for the community, and have clarity about the future of the project coordination. For that to happen, we ask for an additional US$ 75,000 budget (~ BRL 390,000) to maintain a working team, and the detailed plan will be sent to you by email. If approved, we will develop and submit new outreach and technical plans for the additional year. The first one will be shared via email since it is not a public document, and the last one will be uploaded on Commons by the end of May 2025. AJurno (WMB) (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

To be more precise about the numbers, according to the spreadsheet sent by email, we are asking for a budget of R$ 400.890 (US$74.238,89). AJurno (WMB) (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @AJurno (WMB). We will be reviewing this request in the next week once we receive the outreach plan and we finalise the agreements over data sharing and privacy issues as discussed in our monthly check-ins and consultations with Legal. We are looking forward to seeing the growth of the Capacity Exchange with the outreach work you are doing. JStephenson (WMF) (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, dear JStephenson (WMF), as we spoke before, we are asking for the project to be extended for another year to consolidate the integration with Let's Connect and have clarity about the future of the project coordination. On April 21, we concluded the "Wikimedia Brazil Data Sharing Agreement" (Contract 5300) between the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Brasil. On April 24, I shared the updated version of the Outreach Plan in light of the extra-year scenario with you via email. Could you please advise how we should proceed now? Thanks! AJurno (WMB) (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @AJurno (WMB) thanks for this update.

I have reviewed the Outreach Plan with comments for the teams consideration. If you can review them to update the plan by end of this week that would be great. In the meantime I am moving forward with the process for internal approval to make an amendment to the current grant to add the activities developed in the Plan, the end date June 30th 2026 and funding additional funding for 74,000 USD. JStephenson (WMF) (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Jtud (WMF) JStephenson (WMF) (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for looping me in the conversation, JStephenson. Confirming that we've reached out to WMB for the next steps. -- JTud (WMF), Grants Administrator (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Project's second year report

Dear @JStephenson (WMF), as agreed we send you below our report at the end of the project's Second Year. Please, let me know if you need anything else from us on this matter.

AJurno (WMB) (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Outcomes

Please respond to the following questions below:

Where have you published your draft plan? Share the link to it here:

The Capacity Exchange is published on the project’s page on Meta-Wiki, where the full project documentation is available. Between June 2024 and June 2025, the project completed the second year of the second phase of its cycle, guided by Technical Plan v.3.0. In May 2025, we developed and obtained approval from the Advisory Committee for a Technical Plan covering an additional year, effective from June 2025 to June 2026.

The following documents are available on the project page:

• The Capacity Exchange User Guide;
• A news and activities page dedicated to project updates;
• A Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page;
• The complete project documentation available on Wikimedia Commons, including:
  • Technical Plan – Version 1.0
  • Technical Plan – Version 2.0
  • Technical Plan – Version 3.0
  • Technical Plan – Additional Year
• Two promotional videos are also available on this documentation page.
• The application’s source code is divided into two parts and is fully available on the Wikimedia Brasil GitHub:
  • Back end (link)
  • Front end (link)

What Movement Strategy initiative is this draft plan supporting?

The Capacity Exchange focuses on Global Approach to Local Skills Development, in particular the first two points from Recommendation 6:

• Establish a methodology that maps assets and needs and generates aggregated data for deploying skills development initiatives based on real needs.
• Establish a service that facilitates connecting/matching peers across the Movement for teaching and learning skills (e.g. peer-learning, networking, and pooling of information from partners and allies).

What activities have you completed to produce this draft plan?

Below is a timeline of the activities carried out under Technical Plan Version 3.0, implemented between June 2024 and June 2025.

• In July 2024, the Capacity Exchange (CapX) Working Team gathered in São Paulo, Brazil, for a planning meeting.
• In August 2024, we presented capx.toolforge.org at Wikimania 2024, held in Poland.
• In September 2024, we began the gradual transition process of the Capacity Exchange’s project management. For two months, Andi Inácio and Amanda Jurno co-managed the project, before Andi stepped away due to the start of a doctoral fellowship abroad.
• In October 2024, we completed the selection process for two new members of the CapX Technical Development Team. Shortly thereafter, we initiated the hiring of a new front-end developer and UX/UI designer for the project.

• During October and November 2024, the team refactored the Technical Plan, building upon its second and first versions, with the goal of guiding the second development cycle of the software.

• In November and December 2024, we conducted focus groups to evaluate the current version of CapX and identify its gaps and strengths. During this time, the team was also dedicated to incorporating all the feedback received from the community into a new version of the software. In December, the CapX Working Team gathered in São Paulo, Brazil, for a planning meeting.
• In January 2025, the development team worked tirelessly to produce a full version of the software, integrating all the feedback collected in previous months. An additional developer was hired to help us build an even better tool for the Wikimedia community.
• In February 2025, we submitted a request to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for a budget update, which enabled us to bring one more developer and a community outreach facilitator onto the team. Prior to that, we had already launched part of the new version of the software, allowing users to view and edit their own profiles.
• In March 2025, the development team released the new version of the software. This updated tool was designed following UX/UI principles, with a mobile-first approach and low-connectivity compatibility, making it more accessible to users in the Global South. Furthermore, thanks to its integration with the TranslateWiki platform, it is a multilingual tool that can be easily translated into various languages across the Wikimedia Movement. This version also introduced a completely redesigned Capacity Directory and the ability to create organizational profiles. These innovations were documented in a Diff post, and a promotional video was produced to support their dissemination.

• Throughout March 2025, the Capacity Exchange coordination team organized efforts to communicate the launch of the new version of the platform in collaboration with the six CapX community outreach facilitators. An email list was compiled with over 250 contacts, including key organizations, affiliates, and Wikimedians from across the global Wikimedia Movement, as well as numerous individuals from Brazil who had expressed interest.
• In April 2025, an agreement to move forward with the integration of Let’s Connect profiles and the Capacity Exchange was signed by the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Brasil. To consolidate this integration and define the future coordination of the project, the WMF issued an amendment to the current grant, extending the project’s iteration for an additional year. As a result, the Capacity Exchange project will continue to be coordinated by Wikimedia Brasil through June 2026.
• During April and May 2025, the team revised both the Outreach Plan and the Technical Plan for the additional year, with the aim of guiding activities over the next 12 months. The first document contains sensitive information and is therefore private.
• Throughout May 2025, the development team focused on final deliverables related to Technical Plan v.3.0. We are proud to say that all planned tasks were successfully completed, and the code was finalized in a clean and open format, available for anyone to review and/or use.

As a result of the activities implemented, in June 2025, the Capacity Exchange achieved the following outcomes:

• 430 user profiles were created on the platform;
• The project pages received 23,721 views;
• The promotional video was accessed 2,869 times on Wikimedia Commons;
• The CapX tool was translated, fully or partially, into 42 languages.

In which community channels have you announced your draft plan?

Learning

In 2024, we published two case studies, and in the first half of 2025, we published one additional case study. These publications share experiences and lessons learned from the development of the tool with the broader community.

2024 Learning:

• Capacity Exchange's Participation in the Outreachy Internship Program
• Launching the Capacity Exchange

2025 Learning (First Half):

• From Development to Launch: The New Version of Capacity Exchange

Reports

Throughout 2024, we published four quarterly reports.

2024 Quarterly Reports:

• January – March 2024: An Outreachy Program for the Wikimedia Peer Power Tool
• April – June 2024: CapX Front-end Deployment
• July – September 2024: CapX Launch at Wikimania 2024
• October – December 2024: Updating the Technical Development Plan and Restructuring the Team

Diff Articles

In 2024, we published two Diff articles:

• Prototyping a Collective Vision: Global Collaboration in Capacity Exchange (August 2024)
• Leveling Up: Growth and Commitment of the Capacity Exchange Team (December 2024)

In 2025, we also published two Diff articles:

• News: Capacity Exchange Has a New Version (March 2025)
• Capacity Exchange: Closing One Chapter and Opening Another (June 2025)

Promotional Videos

Two promotional videos were released to announce the launch of the two versions of the CapX tool:

• Launch Video of Capacity Exchange (CapX) (August 2024)
• Promotional Video for the New Version of CapX (March 2025)

---

Event Participation

CapX was presented and featured in various community events:

• Wikimania 2024 (Katowice, Poland), August 2024
• WikiIndaba 2024 (Johannesburg, South Africa), October 2024
• CapX session at Wikimedia Brasil’s community meeting, November 2024
• Event with the Volunteer Supporters Network – Mapping Skills, Building Networks for Peer Learning: Testing the Capacity Exchange, November 2024
• Africa Wikimedia Technical Community – Mapping Skills and Building Networks: Testing Capacity Exchange for Peer Learning, December 2024
• Wikimedia Summit 2024(Berlin, Germany)
• Wikimedia Hackathon 2024 (Tallinn, Estonia)
• Wikimedia Europe General Assembly 2024 (Prague, Czech Republic)
• Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2024 (Istanbul, Turkey)
• Francophone WikiConvention 2024 (Quebec, Canada)

2025 Engagements:

• CapX presentation at the Wikimedia Europe General Assembly 2025 (Hybrid | Prague, Czech Republic), April 2025
• Capacity Exchange Training Session – Wikimedia Brasil, April 2025
• ESEAP Community Call, April 2025 (online)
• Festa da Wikimedia em Português, May 2025
• WikiSource Conference 2025 (Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia)
• Wikimedia Hackathon 2025 (Istanbul, Turkey)
• Youth Conference 2025 (Prague, Czech Republic)
• EduWiki Conference 2025 (Bogotá, Colombia)

Finances

Grant funds spent

Please describe how much grant money you spent for approved expenses, and tell us what you spent it on.

The total amount spent was BRL 782,690.34. These funds were allocated to the following activities:

• Materials, services, and supplies: BRL 189,808.66
• Salaries for professional staff: BRL 347,959.02
• Travel expenses: BRL 127,381.65

The detailed breakdown of expenses is available in a spreadsheet here. It is also important to highlight that all additional costs were fully borne by Wikimedia Brasil, with no expectation of reimbursement.

Remaining funds

Do you have any remaining grant funds?

No.

Anything else

Anything else you want to share about your project?

In July 2025, CapX will host a community session at “WikiCon Brasil 2025: Strengthening Digital Public Goods”, focusing on improving understanding and usability of the Capacity Directory. The activity will involve the entire CapX project team.

On this occasion, there will also be an in-person technical planning session for the next development cycle of the tool (June 2025 to June 2026), based on the Technical Plan – Additional Year, which was approved by the Advisory Committee and published on Commons in May 2025.

This report was made by me (@AJurno (WMB)), Capacity Exchange's current Project Manager, with the help of the Wikimedia Brasil Fundraising Manager (@DSouza (WMB)) and Funds and Administrative Manager (@CCosta (WMB)).
AJurno (WMB) (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Wording clarity

Reading through the project page, it feels very... jargon-y? The summary in the infobox explains it well, but the text itself is hard to parse for Wikimedians like myself who are not familiar with that kind of corporate/marketing terminology. I am a bit worried as the more concrete details are quite hard to find, making it harder for the project's audience to reach an informed opinion about its end goal. Readers might be left with the impression that it is a social media platform focused on some vague notion of "capacity-building", without knowing the specifics that it entails. Chaotic Enby (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

And even if one might be able to change the wording, it is very obvious to me that this could be money that is put into Meta instead. Wikis are good for organizing stuff, and so we don't particularly need some parallel service that can't be explained living off in affiliate land. I certainly hope that when grants go out again that this project is reviewed quite closely for whether it's 1) achieving its own goals and 2) whether its achieving actual movement goals in a way 3) that doesn't duplicate effort to support wikis. I suspect it fails at least #3, which at least makes it a waste of money. Izno (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Regarding 2), a worry I have is that the initiative goals are very broadly worded, making it easy to match some of them to projects that will not have a concrete positive impact on the movement. For example, Initiative 32: Encourage a diversity of methods, including training, mentoring, consulting, online learning, peer-to-peer support, and events. Pretty much any project could be reasonably construed to match this goal, and yet, it is not clear whether the methods encouraged will be in line with the aims of the Wikimedia movement – some WikiEd programs, or OKA's instructions to use Grok for source-finding, are good examples of what the mismatch may look like. Chaotic Enby (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Readers might be left with the impression that it is a social media platform focused on some vague notion of "capacity-building", without knowing the specifics that it entails. I gather that this is the same impression as the one held by the creators. So. -- asilvering (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2025 (UTC)