Talk:North American Wikimedians/Hub founding

Main

Talk

Agreement draft text

Background materials

What we expect afterward

Next steps as of July 2025: User groups should select a representative so we can make more formally representative decisions, and get consensus on a application for a Hub grant from the WMF. See at bottom how to sign up.

Would your group sign on? How should the agreement text be revised?

• Wikimedia DC will sign on. Please do edit the content or phrasing of the agreement; let's get it right and get 10 groups to sign. -- econterms (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• Philadelphia WikiSalon supports the initiative for a North American Hub. -- Dorevabelfiore (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• Wikimedia NYC has support of the concept, and we will bring this proposed agreement to our board.--Pharos (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• On behalf of the Wikimedians of Los Angeles User Group, we are glad to lend our full support to this initiative. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 23:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• The North Carolina Wikipedians User Group supports the North American Hub. -- Sodapopinski7 (talk) 20:11:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• The Wikimedians of Colorado User Group fully supports the North American Hub. --  Buaidh  talk e-mail 01:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• The Bay Area Wikipedians User Group supports the North American Hub. -- E_mln_e (talk) 11:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
• Wikimedians of Chicago User Group will join the North American Hub Luiysia (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Wikimedia Canada supports the initiative for a North American Hub. -- Louis Germain (WMCA) (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• AfroCROWD supports the initiative for a North American Hub. Shanluan (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Cascadia Wikimedians supports the initiative for a North American Hub. Peaceray (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• MediaWiki Stakeholders' Group supports the initiative for a North American Hub. -- Bryandamon (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Wiki Project Med supports Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• Wiki Cari supports the initiative for a North American Hub. Guettarda (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Clarify supportive purpose

Change:

We will host events, activities, or services open to North American Wikimedians regularly and we can say such events are held on behalf of in concert with of the North American hub

to read

We will host events, activities, or services open to North American Wikimedians, and support one another's events.

• +1 as proposer. –SJ talk  21:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Adopted with tweaks; see my general reply below.

Reduce exclusivity

The hub should support all initiatives to improve Wikimedia across the region. We cannot become a secondary layer of approval for affiliate status. Voting should be kept to a minimum, and replaced by structural defaults where possible, or by simple RfCs as already understood on Meta.

Change:

By majority vote of existing member groups, new groups can join the hub. A group can leave whenever it decides to.

to read

Any Wikimedia affiliates based in North America can join the hub by signing on to this agreement. A group can leave whenever it decides to.

• • Adopted, with minimal rephrasing. -- econterms (talk) 06:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Change:

By majority vote of existing member groups, project may be approved or declined as "North American Wikimedians" (hub)

to read

Any project or event by members of the hub can be announced on our projects page.

Add:

Other groups (including partner orgs that are not affiliates) may be proposed for inclusion in the Hub, or for removal from the Hub, by an RfC on the talk page.

• +1 as proposer. –SJ talk  21:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

SJ:

I'll happily fold some of this in. I agree with minimizing voting, and thought I had. And I certainly agree that this hub mustn't "become a secondary layer of approval for affiliate status." -- nobody wants that, to my knowledge.

However, regarding the first change, I don't want to accept the suggested rephrasing exactly. I didn't want to use that proposed criterion "based in North America", and preferred "offering services to North Americans". E.g. LGBT+ or Francophone or Wiksource user groups might be based elsewhere, but active enough in North America to join.

Updated the last suggestion, so it can include groups that are not specific to N.America. Those shouldn't be automatically included, but groups within the region should be -- that's what it says on the tin. –SJ talk  00:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I felt it was important to say not only that a group wants to join the hub, and signs on to this agreement, but that the others accept and welcome it. There is some idea out there called collecting hats? collecting roles or powers or items for the vita? or joining everything? and I think we don't want to give membershp/credit/votes to inactive or irrelevant members even if they would sign. I'll reflect further. -- econterms (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think hubs should be social clubs. They should by default support all efforts in their region or focus, especially those without other support networks. There's nothing to 'collect' -- every org should be part of a hub if they want to be. (possibly not more than one, in which case you choose which you join; that's a norm we should set across all the hubs. But none excluded simply for lack of popularity.) –SJ talk  00:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Econterms: would love some iteration and broader discussion before Wikimania :) –SJ talk  22:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sj: I'm slow! But I halfway adopted these improvements. Thank you for thinking it through. I feel that some backstop of formal decisionmaking is necessary in cases of true disagreement or bad faith. But this is not central, so I scooted that bit down into a subsection and made plain that voting would not be a regularly scheduled recurring matter; possibly it's needed only for exceptional cases. I'm not sure you will find it to be better. It's longer. But by separating section that away we can use your simpler friendlier general and direct phrasings in the top section. -- econterms (talk) 06:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion to avoid control of Hub by dominant nation

It has been suggested that governance procedures be adapted to make sure that the US chapters and user groups could not control the agenda entirely. We could tweak the proposed procedures to reduce the chance of this danger, e.g. by making a rule that all proposals for projects or new members have international support. If we go this direction let's find some rule that is easy and feasible. -- 04:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC) econterms (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Invite to Wikimedia Medicine to join

I asked them at Talk:Wiki_Project_Med#Request_for_Wiki_Project_Med_to_sign_to_support_Hubs. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Project Med's scope is global though we are incorporated in New York state and file with the IRS. Are we permitted to join? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Wonderful! Glad you joined. Yes, we'll work it out somehow. Maybe thematic and regional user groups will have exactly parallel roles, or maybe they won't. -- econterms (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

User groups representatives

• Wikimedia DC's rep will be econterms
• AfroCROWD's rep will be Shanluan (talk)

Japojj5 Japojj5 (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Updated

@Japojj5 Japojj5 (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Anglo American Hub

@Bluerasberry:@Bryandamon:@Buaidh:@Dorevabelfiore:@Econterms:@Frank Schulenburg:@Louis Germain (WMCA):@Lunita28mx:@OhanaUnited:@Omar sansi:@Peaceray: @Pharos:@PKM:@Rosiestep:@Shanluan:@Sj:

The original concept for a North American Hub was simply defined by the geography of North America, including Canada, the United States, Mexico, and the Caribbean. This geographic definition was generally interpreted to exclude Central America and Greenland, but include the Lucayan Archipelago and the Hawaiian Islands.

A major problem for a North American Hub is the dominance of the United States in North America in terms of population and culture. Unfortunately, this dominance is futher complicated by a political movement to assert United States political and military hegemony over all of the Americas. Some users in Mexico have indicated an interest in creating a Latin American Hub. The peoples of the Americas comprise scores of nationalies and hundreds of ethnicies and cultural heritages.

The various language versions of Wikipedia create a meeting place for users with a common language base. Rather than have a geography based North American Hub, I suggest an English language based Anglo American Hub for all of the Americas. There are currently 29 countries (both sovereign and dependent) of the Americas in which English is commonly, though not necessarily predominately, spoken. (See w:User:Buaidh/AAH.) An Anglo American Hub will provide a common language forum for all of the Americas with full appreciation for all of our languages and cultures without domination by any particular country. The English language regions of the Americas encompass, and are diverse as, Alaska, Hawai'i, Falklands, Barbados, Bermuda, Newfoundland, and Nunavut.

Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 02:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@Buaidh: Just as a matter of word choice, "Anglo" right now in the United States is too often a en:Dog_whistle_(politics)#21st_century to mean en:White power. I do not think a name including the word "Anglo" will work this generation.

I do like the idea of having an English-language advocacy Wikipedia group for lots of reasons, including that we have so many major editorial and ethical issues pending for English Wikipedia, and that no group even attempts to convene conversations or surveys on these matters to the extent that other Wikimedia chapters are able to do such things for other language communities and Wikipedia versions.

You raised the "dominance of the United States in North America", but a regional English language group seems positioned to have even more dominance over the global Wikimedia Movement than even a United States chapter would.

All the consultations we have done here with this North American Hub idea and with prior discussions for a Wikimedia United States chapter have put a list of options and challenges on the table for discussion. I think there are about 5 viable options for progress, and I would like for us all to choose one and go forward. The option that I dislike the most is indecision. If we are to go forward without changing things, then I would like that to be a conscious choice and not something into which we all default through inaction. Inaction now to me feels more laborious than taking some actions to settle organization governance issues on matters of grants (both WMF and external), when and how the community can speak to major ethical issues especially those affecting volunteers but out of scope for the WMF, and how people in this region can get the benefits of being an organized group and avoid the continuous penalties that we endure in the global Wikimedia movement for not having an organized regional group.

We have some good victories in our regional development but I am puzzled about how to build the consensus to go to the next step. NARWHAL/February 2026 is tonight, we can discuss there. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The use of Anglo American is just the same as the use of Latin American. It in a linguist reference and not intended as a cultural or ethnic reference. I have a bilingual family, and we use Anglo merely to refer to language. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 15:41, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps we we should call ourselves the Transnational American Hub to emphasize our cooperative intent. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 16:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Due to immigration, North American countries are pretty diverse. Spanish & French are easily dominant in large regions. So Anglo American is inaccurate & limiting.

Also, as a former Hawaiʻ i resident, that state will be considered part of the US by WMF no matter what grouping we arrive at. European-ancestry citizens there are in the minority while people with Japanese ancestry have a plurality.

Yes, this is a tough nut to crack, but I agree with Bluerasberry that Anglo American Hub is a bad moniker considering the tendency of many in the US to have acted jingoistically. Peaceray (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I think this was a good idea, but a very bad name. A much better name would be the Pan American Hub This name has a long association with inclusivity and unity throughout the hemisphere.

This user supports the creation of a
Pan American Hub

Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 04:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)