Talk:North American Wikimedians/Hub

This is for discussions about a potential North American hub and what that would encompass or mean. For general discussions about North American affiliates and initiatives, see Talk:North American Wikimedians! –SJ talk  00:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Econterms thanks for talking about this on the WALRUS call yesterday -- we should make progress here on Meta too. We can update some of the details about geography (it's up to us to figure it out, no external constraints). And we can compile questions we'd like to ask everyone in the region, from past examples + considering natural areas of focus. –SJ talk  15:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

May 2026 consultation

Please share your feedback on the Hub name and the Steering Committee composition in these sections.

Hub name

• I propose "WikiConference North America" for the name of the hub.

I favor choosing a name that immediately communicates what the organization is and what it does. I do not favor a name like "CANCUS" because that word was made up and it has no meaning without additional explanation. I think that a word like "CANCUS" could be useful if this organization was intended to be internal and not known or discussed by the general wiki community or the public, and we needed to obscure the organization to avoid confusing people with backend administration. If the name is supposed to be public facing, then I prefer to have a name designed for easy public understanding.

"Conference" has multiple meanings. We already have WikiConference North America, which is a major event where we already have dedicated travel funding to all the regions covered, and that is historically our most stable regional inclusion and resource-sharing process. "Conference" also means multiple organizations meeting regularly, and is a common term in diplomacy, sports leagues, and for religious organizations. "Conference" also refers to the discussion itself. I recognize that Wikimedia Mexico has communicated that this group should not act as representative of people in Mexico, so we need a term which does not overreach or overstate authority. Still, I think it is correct to say that we have an established conference which has regional participation. That name has been acceptable for 10+ years. If we use it, then we do not have to teach a new name, and also we already have community intuition about the boundaries of what this conference can do. It is a meeting for discussion and a name for the groups who are represented there. The conference itself does not appoint representatives who speak for the region, but could be a venue where groups collectively sign onto consensus statements. We definitely have established consensus to meet regularly - I think that now would be a good time to tie some of the infrastructure of the annual meeting to other needed administration, including regional community oversight of Grants:Regions/North America (also called "North America" but not including Mexico) and community discussions like strategic priorities and addressing the continuous influx of social/ethical decisions which come to our collective. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

As a median solution, how about "WikiCircle of the Caribbean, US, and Canada"? We could call it "WikiCircle" most of the time, just like we do with "WikiConference", and use the url wikicircle.org. Pharos (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

This may be mildly heretical, but I'm lukewarm on 'wiki-' as an unscoped prefix. Would 'Circle of C/US/CA Wikimedians' work as well? Arlo Barnes (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, desde Wikimedia México participaremos como observadores por las razones del grant. Pero estaremos ahí. ¿Qué tal si vamos directo a "Norteamérica y el Caribe"? También Wikicircle es buena idea. Saludos! ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 06:34, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

 Support 'Norteamérica y el Caribe'/'North America and the Caribbean Wikimedian Hub' Arlo Barnes (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

It seems non-ideal to communicate 'WikiConference North America puts on the annual WikiConference North America' Arlo Barnes (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• If we are going the innovative acronym route, I think I do prefer @Gaurav:'s suggestion of CARUSCA (Carribean-US-Canada) over CANCUS.--Pharos (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed on CARUSCA. CANCUS sounds like a disease. Gamaliel (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

• Hello, on Grants talk:Programs/Hub Fund/CANCUS (Canada, Caribbean, US) Hub Proposal I proposed the following:

• WHISCC, pronounced "whisk", for Wikimedia Hub of the United States, Canada, and the Caribbean
• HUSCC, pronounced "husk", for Hub of the United States, Canada, and the Caribbean
• CCUSH, pronounced "cush", for Canada, the Caribbean, and United States Hub
• CCRUSH, pronounced "crush", for the Caribbean, Canada, and United States Hub
• CRUSC, pronounced "crux", for the Caribbean, United States, and Canada

None of these are really great. I'm fine with CARUSCA but I hope something better is found. ↠Pine (✉) 03:28, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• At first, I didn't know what to think about Bluerasberry's suggestion to call the hub WikiConference North America (acronym: WCNA). But now that I've thought about it for a few days, the reasoning makes sense, and I like it very much for all the reasons already mentioned. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
• Following up on several points:

• I'm fine with including the word "Conference" somewhere in the name, and I prefer it to "WikiCircle". I believe that this would be quickly understood by outsiders who are familiar with concepts such as athletic conferences.
• I would prefer not to use "North America" in the name given that an outsider could expect that the group's scope would include Mexico.
• Here's another option. We could adapt the existing term Canuck, and use the abbreviation CANUCK, which the K referring to the Laurentian language word kanata, from which the name Canada probably was derived. If we did this then the abbreviation would mean Canada, United States, and Carribean "village". Our village would be a big one. The reference to a word from an indigenous language I hope would be accepted as respectful and a signal of the intent to be inclusive of indigenous languages, cultures, and peoples.
• Of the options proposed above, I prefer CANUCK or CARUSCA (later addition) or as stated below, NORWHAL. To me the latter implies all of North America including Mexico, but to a lesser degree than the full name "WikiConference North America", and if Wikimedia México doesn't object to NORWHAL for this hub's name then I'd be fine with that too.
• Will there be a !vote on selecting the name? ↠Pine (✉) 05:32, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

CANUCK might be too Canada-specific? CARUSCA makes more sense. Lewisguile (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• We keep having monthly meetings titled NARWHAL, so NARWHAL should be considered. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rosiestep (talk) 19:51, June 12, 2026 (UTC)

• The above comment was from Rosiestep, and I agree that NARWHAL is worth considering. I've added it to my list of preferred options above. ↠Pine (✉) 19:15, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Steering Committee composition

• Personally, I think I favor a mixed model, with the members representing the US and Canada on the Steering Committee being chosen half by affiliates/informal groups and half by popular ballot. And the members representing the Caribbean and Indigenous communities should probably be selected by consensus-driven discussion for the initial phase, given the lack of existing community infrastructure. Also someone mentioned, and I think I agree, that we ought to select backup members for the Steering Committee too, as it is likely we will have a couple of dropouts over the course of a year.--Pharos (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
• I favor the current leadership appointing an interim committee without democratic process, with the intent for that committee to set up basics including a democratic process within the year. Wikipedians like community participation but also it is very expensive to set up meaningful infrastructure. I helped and am helping Wikimedia LGBT+ transition to more community participation. In that case, some people who had been contributing administration for years were the interim governing committee. We added to that with some elected positions. Elections are not cheap, because they require a membership process, establishing a communication process, then running an election. A big part of the challenge is that all of this is unrelated to editing Wikimedia projects, and few people join Wikimedia projects with intent to participate in non-content creation editing. There is already an administrator shortage in many Wikimedia projects (like Wikipedia), and typically, the people who want to join project administration are a subset of the people who have or could have admin userrights. The Wikimedia Foundation has ongoing strategic planning and pilots to train and support people into admin positions, and as that process has developed, I think it has found that we do not have sufficient numbers of engaged members to commit volunteer labor to justify putting the hours/time/attention into setting up a general open democratic process to start. I do think if we get a committee established somehow, then after the commmittee is established, the barriers to introducing the 10+ steps to volunteer online community governance are lowered. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
• I support the ideas shared above. The Steering Committee composition should include as many dedicated stakeholders as possible. Is there a list or place where folks can express interest in being on the committee? (I'm interested.) -Wil540 art (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with @Bluerasberry's point that directly appointing an interim committee and avoiding running an election this first go-round does save a lot of work. - Wil540 art (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Nominations for Steering Committee, to be decided at June 15 NARWHAL call

Given that most of the feedback is leaning toward an appointed, consensus-selected interim hub steering committee, rather than a full election process the first go-round, going to create a space here for people to put forward their own nominations. These would be discussed and settled on during a open group discussion at the NARWHAL/June 2026 call on June 15. The interim steering committee itself would start to operate at the beginning of August 2026. Of course, there will still be considerations of geographic and other diversity for the seven or more members selected, per North American Wikimedians/Hub#Steering Committee process.--Pharos (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Nominations:

• Wil540 art (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• Representing Canada. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:07, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• As an observant of Wikimedia México: --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• E mln e (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2026 (UTC) , as representative for the San Francisco Bay Area

  I would support this self nomination as a way to get representation of the many wikimedians in California. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Bluerasberry (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• Rosiestep (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2026 (UTC) as co-founder and representative of WCNA UG. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• We decided on the NARWHAL call tonight to approve all of the above 6 persons as members of the interim hub steering committee. Several other members will be added before August for further diversity and experience, and we will have a bit of a larger committee than originally planned to accommodate this.--Pharos (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Terrific! - PKM (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• It's a big step forward! I am glad. It's coming together. We invite more volunteers for the steering committee! Especially Caribbean or indigenous expertise and interest. Chat with us if you want guidance. -- econterms (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2026 (UTC)