Talk:Updating the ecosystem of Wikimedia organizations

Affiliations Committee draft recommendations for the ecosystem

Hi Everyone,

I am happy to share draft recommendations and documentation from the Affiliations Committee [1] on three strategic areas that need continuous consideration to best support Wikimedia affiliates. These areas are: 1) overall affiliate model, 2) capacity development, and 3) conflict management.

Context

The key areas were proposed at the Affiliations Committee strategic retreat in November 2024 [2] and, as a result, working groups were convened within the Affiliations Committee to strategically define potential future approaches to improve the support to the affiliates. These conversations have also aligned with the pilot proposed by the Wikimedia Foundation in 2024 around updating the ecosystem of Wikimedia organizations [3] and can be in a way considered as the input of the expertise of the Affiliations Committee to the ongoing conversation.

Content

For clarity of presentation, purpose and expected outcomes of the proposal are presented first to be then followed by the actual outline of the proposal itself. Finally, a potential future role of the Affiliations Committee in respective areas is put forward.

Affiliate model. The overall definition of the affiliate model has the biggest implications to the future of the affiliates and their impact. The Affiliations Committee has given due consideration to existing landscape and future options, and is boldly [4] proposing an efficient overall model with reduced layers and complexity. In this model, a proposal is made to connect more clearly the rights of the organizations to their responsibilities. At the same time, the Affiliations Committee recognizes that there are some big questions in this that need wider and deeper input from across the movement, so we are proposing some questions for your consideration and further input.

Capacity development. A key area for the affiliates to become more effective and sustainable, creating more impact. The Affiliations Committee has especially considered the learning spaces and materials that are available, and from its own perspective to improve the onboarding process. Areas of governance, leadership, and community support stand out for continuous improvement, and as key factors for future success.

Conflict management. When it comes to conflicts, prevention tops reactive management at all times. For it to function better, there needs to be a holistic approach with professional support systems. In its documentation the Affiliations Committee has mapped out, based on its experience, the key principles, resources, and structures needed for improvements.

Conversations and next steps

The Affiliations Committee has started collecting feedback on some of these ideas at the regional conferences in September and October. Now, we are moving into a virtual feedback phase, collecting feedback on these draft proposals through the month of November 2025. We will be following conversations on meta and will participate in some regional calls. Your input will then be integrated to form finalized proposals of the Affiliations Committee for updating the future ecosystem of the movement organizations and its own ways of working. We look forward to hearing from you!

Regards,

Jeffrey Keefer

Chair, Affiliations Committee

Links:

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Recommendations_November_2025

[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/News/Issue_4#Affiliate_Strategy_Updates

[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Updating_the_ecosystem_of_Wikimedia_organizations

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold

FULBERT (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Ecosystem of Wikimedia Organizations pilot update - November 2025

This is our first pilot update since we presented the paper Towards a Healthy Ecosystem of Wikimedia Organizations at Wikimania last August. Since then, we have made a lot of progress at Wikimedia conferences, and also behind the scenes.

Conferences

We have introduced the Ecosystem of Wikimedia Organizations pilot at several events, sharing sessions with the Global Resource Distribution Committee pilot. We have been to the CEE Meeting, Encuentro de la Comunidad Hispanohablante, WikiConference North America, and GLAM Wiki.

Online calls

We are also participating in online community events, and organizing our own workshops upon request. We joined the ESEAP Community Call recently, we are confirmed to join the next MENA community call, and we are planning workshops for South Asia and other communities. If you want us to run an Ecosystem pilot session at your community event, let us know in the discussion page or reach out to Kaarel Vaidla - kvaidlawikimedia.org.

Prioritization of questions

The paper, which serves as a starting point for this pilot, contains many questions. The Wikimedia organizations and other community members have more. First, we need a prioritization of these questions, selecting the ones that must be addressed first. We have started to select questions, to bring them to the conference workshops and encourage online discussions about them. If you have feedback about the questions asked or you are missing an important question, please share it!

Ongoing work

Currently we are working on and expect to report upon in our next update:

• Define key areas. The conversation cycle at the in-person events and virtual closes in November 2025, wrapping up the collection of feedback and new questions. We stay in touch with key stakeholders to define key areas for impact and select the questions to be addressed first.
• Convene a volunteer group. For a deeper dive into these key areas and selection of questions to prioritize, a volunteer group is created. We are contacting several Wikimedians with diverse backgrounds, aiming to form a group with volunteers and staff with experience in Wikimedia organizations covering all the regions and the main themes. The output from this group will be a clear proposal on organizational questions that need to be tackled first, with a collection of initial ideas on how to respond to these questions.
• Coordination with committees. The Affiliations Committee and the new GRDC are very likely to be ultimately responsible for addressing some of the most important questions related to this pilot (see for instance the recently published AffCom’s recommendations and the GRDC’s request for feedback.) We need these 2 global volunteer committees to be involved in this pilot, and they need to coordinate well with each other. We are already in touch with both to tighten this collaboration.

What do you think? We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Qgil-WMF (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Request for feedback

To inform the continued work on the ecosystem pilot, the support team is seeking feedback from everyone interested in improvements on our organizational approach, from existing affiliates to movement partners from individual organizers to project contributors. Based on the conversations so far we are suggesting 4 topical areas with some prompt questions for you to respond. Each section will have a dedicated discussion space. You can also propose questions missed in the prompts, yet important to discuss from your perspective. Looking forward to hearing from you! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Responsibilities

• What kind of work should Wikimedia affiliates focus on?
• How should Affiliates change to help Wikimedia projects and volunteers overcome today's challenges?
• The Movement Charter draft of 2024 defines Wikimedia Movement Organizations responsibilities. Is this definition good or should it be improved?

Recognition and accountability

• Why do we recognize affiliates?
• What minimum requirements should apply to all affiliates?
• Which affiliate accountability mechanisms are needed (e.g., public reporting, community engagement, membership)?
• When should affiliates be derecognized?

Types of affiliations

• Should the difference between user groups and chapters be simply based on whether they are informal groups of volunteers or formal organizations with staff?
• Should Movement Partners be officially recognized as an affiliate type (as planned in 2012) or not (as implied in the Movement Charter draft in 2024)?
• Should Hubs be a type of Wikimedia affiliate?

Funding

• Should there be different limits of funding for user groups and chapters?
• Do we need a structured model that defines what affiliate growth looks like and the milestones that indicate progress?
• If yes, What are some of the outline key stages and milestones in an affiliate’s development to guide their growth
• How do we balance the affiliates’ need for stable core operational funding and variable programmatic funding?
• Are there any risks to approving annual funding only to recognized affiliates?

Other areas and questions

This is the space to bring forward other areas and questions to the discussion, not covered by proposed prompts. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Feedback on “Updating the ecosystem of Wikimedia organizations” – grounded in “Visible, Vibrant, Valuable”

This feedback is offered in response to the Wikimedia Foundation’s consultation on the ecosystem of Wikimedia organizations, and builds directly on the arguments in my earlier essay, “Visible, Vibrant, Valuable: Affiliates at the Heart of a Thriving Movement”. The core premise of that essay remains central here: Affiliates are not broken—they are already visible, vibrant, and valuable. What the movement needs is not therapy, but trust.

Below are responses to the prompt questions, grouped by the four topical areas.

Responsibilities

• What kind of work should Wikimedia affiliates focus on?

Affiliates should focus on locally rooted, mission-driven action that only they can deliver: advocacy, public outreach, GLAM and education partnerships, volunteer support, and contextualizing global Wikimedia goals for national or regional realities. Their strength lies in autonomy and adaptability—not compliance with centrally defined mandates.

• How should Affiliates change to help Wikimedia projects and volunteers overcome today's challenges?

Most affiliates do not need to “change”—they need stable support, reduced bureaucracy, and recognition of their existing impact. Today’s challenges (e.g., safety, sustainability, inclusion) are best addressed through local leadership, not structural redesign from above.

• Is the Movement Charter draft’s definition of Wikimedia Movement Organizations’ responsibilities good or should it be improved?

The 2024 draft leans toward over-formalization. Responsibilities should be principled but flexible, emphasizing shared values (openness, equity, impact) without prescribing one-size-fits-all roles. Affiliates already embody these values through action—not paperwork.

Recognition and Accountability

• Why do we recognize affiliates?

We recognize affiliates because they make the Wikimedia movement visible, credible, and effective in the real world. Recognition is not a reward, it is an acknowledgment of sustained contribution and local legitimacy.

• What minimum requirements should apply to all affiliates?

Requirements should be light and functional:

• Commitment to Wikimedia’s mission and values
• Transparent governance (formal or informal)
• Active engagement with volunteers and local communities

Avoid legalistic or administrative thresholds that exclude grassroots groups.

• Which affiliate accountability mechanisms are needed?

Prioritize community-facing accountability:

• Public annual summaries (narrative, not audit-style)
• Open feedback channels for volunteers
• Peer learning and mutual review among affiliates

Avoid top-down compliance regimes.

• When should affiliates be derecognized?

Only after prolonged inactivity (e.g., two+ years with no public activity or community engagement), and only after supportive outreach to understand underlying challenges. Derecognition must be rare, respectful, and restorative—not punitive.

Types of Affiliations

• Should the difference between user groups and chapters be based on formality?

No. The distinction should reflect capacity and scope of work, not legal status. Many user groups operate with high impact despite informality. Consider a continuum of affiliation, not a hierarchy.

• Should Movement Partners be officially recognized as an affiliate type?

Only if they demonstrate long-term, mission-aligned collaboration and receive endorsement from local communities. However, formal inclusion risks blurring the line between core movement actors and external collaborators. Caution is warranted.

• Should Hubs be a type of Wikimedia affiliate?

Hubs may serve as service enablers (e.g., shared tech, training), but should not become decision-making bodies. Affiliates must remain the primary movement representatives in their regions. Hubs should amplify - not replace - local leadership.

Funding

• Should there be different funding limits for user groups and chapters?

Funding should be based on demonstrated need, impact, and capacity, not on labels. A dynamic user group may merit more support than a dormant chapter.

• Do we need a structured model for affiliate growth with milestones?

Yes, as a supportive roadmap, not a compliance ladder. Suggested milestones:

• Building a core volunteer team
• Hosting first public event or partnership
• Establishing basic financial transparency
• Engaging in cross-affiliate learning

• How to balance core operational vs. programmatic funding?

Affiliates need unrestricted core funding to be resilient. At least 50% of funding should support operations-project-only grants foster instability and short-termism.

• Are there risks to approving annual funding only to recognized affiliates?

Yes. It may exclude emerging groups with high potential and reinforce bureaucracy over impact. A **tiered funding model**—with flexible small grants for new groups and multi-year support for established ones—would be more inclusive and effective.

Conclusion

The Wikimedia organizational ecosystem is not unhealthy, it is diversely, dynamically alive. The priority should not be to “fix” affiliates, but to empower, trust, and resource them as the movement’s indispensable local engines. As argued in “Visible, Vibrant, Valuable,” the path forward lies in amplifying what already works, not redesigning from doubt.

Centering Online Communities in the Organizational Ecosystem

While much of the current discussion on the Wikimedia organizational ecosystem focuses on formal entities: chapters, user groups, hubs, and the Foundation—it risks overlooking the foundational layer of the movement: the self-organizing, volunteer-driven online communities that create and curate Wikimedia content. These communities are not merely “users” or “contributors”; they are the primary producers of Wikimedia’s value, yet they lack formal recognition, structural voice, or dedicated support mechanisms within the current ecosystem.

The gap in the current model

The “Towards a Healthy Ecosystem” paper largely treats online communities as passive beneficiaries of affiliate or Foundation action. In reality:

• Online communities operate with minimal formal governance, yet sustain complex norms, dispute-resolution practices, and mentorship cultures.
• They are deeply wary of external interference, whether from the Foundation or affiliates, due to past experiences of misaligned interventions.
• Newcomers often face hostile or indifferent onboarding environments, not because volunteers lack goodwill, but because veteran editors are overwhelmed by backlogs, vandalism, and burnout, with no systemic support.

Crucially, no entity in the current ecosystem is mandated to steward the health of online communities. The Foundation focuses on infrastructure and legal risk; affiliates focus on offline outreach. The result is a strategic vacuum at the core of the movement.

Recommendations

• 1. Recognize online communities as primary movement actors.

The Movement Charter eventually to be adopted, and affiliate frameworks should explicitly acknowledge project-based online communities (e.g., English Wikipedia, Commons, Wikidata) as legitimate, autonomous stakeholders, on par with formal affiliates. This does not require legal recognition, but procedural inclusion: seats in governance discussions, voting rights in movement decisions affecting content policies, and representation in resource-allocation bodies.

• 2. Create lightweight, community-chosen liaison roles.

Support the election (via SecurePoll or similar) of Community Liaisons in each major project authorized to:

• • Channel community needs to the Affiliations Committee, Foundation product teams, and grant bodies
  • Participate in scoping new tools or policies
  • Receive modest stipends or expense reimbursements for time spent in coordination

• 3. Fund community-led health initiatives directly.

Enable microgrants for editor groups (not just formal affiliates) to pilot:

• • Newcomer onboarding pathways
  • Conflict de-escalation training
  • Tool development for content maintenance

This requires the Foundation to develop low-barrier funding mechanisms similar to the former Individual Engagement Grants, but with minimal reporting overhead.

• 4. Affiliates as bridges, not gatekeepers.

Affiliates should be encouraged support online community health through:

• • Hosting skillshares on editing, policy, and moderation
  • Translating global discussions into local languages
  • Advocating for editor needs in national policy debates

But they must not be granted authority over content, moderation, or community norms.

Conclusion

A truly healthy ecosystem cannot be built only by strengthening formal organizations. It must also nourish the informal, digital soil from which Wikimedia grows. Ignoring online communities’ autonomy, needs, and agency perpetuates a disconnect between movement strategy and lived reality. As argued in prior discussions, the vitality of Wikimedia depends not on more structure, but on trusting the collective intelligence of its editors, and giving them the voice and resources they deserve.

Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello Ad Huikeshoven! Thank you for sharing again this deeper elaboration on your perspective regarding the future landscape of Wikimedia organizations. As confirmed by Ben on the talk page of the published paper, the pilot coordination team has well noted this feedback, and it is considered in the synthesis work. Thank you for ensuring that anyone reacting to this request for feedback can also inquire into this perspective! Have a wonderful continuation to your week! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Feedback from Wikiesfera

We would like to point to this answer for more context, and focus here on the funding questions.

1. Should there be different limits of funding for user groups and chapters?

No, funding limits should not be based primarily on the terminology of "user group" versus "chapter." The determining factor should be the strategic scope, operational complexity, and demonstrated capacity of the group. A well-established, impactful user group operating in a critical region warrants funding equivalent to an established chapter. Differentiating by label alone creates arbitrary barriers and reinforces a scarcity mentality, limiting the Movements’ potential growth by treating some user groups (which are, by definition, communities of engaged users) as less worthy of investment. Most gender groups are user groups and represent vital pathways to expansion; underfunding them caps our collective reach and goes against our Movement Strategy.

2. Do we need a structured model that defines what affiliate growth looks like and the milestones that indicate progress?

Yes. A clear, transparent pathway to professionalism is essential to move from informal collectives to sustainable, accountable entities. This model mitigates risk for the Movement, provides affiliates with a roadmap for development, and ensures funding is aligned with maturity and impact. We have impactful groups which currently operate without formal affiliation and still receive grants (like WikiEditoras LX). It is in the Movements’ strategic interest to offer them a structured affiliation path, thereby increasing accountability, alignment, and long-term sustainability for all parties.

3. If yes, what are some of the outline key stages and milestones in an affiliate’s development?

A growth model should focus on capability, not just activity. For example:

• Stage 1: Recognized Community:
  • Milestones: Consistent leadership contact, regular activities/meetups, a code of conduct, and a track record of contributions (content, outreach, technical).
  • Support: Micro-grants, programmatic funding, volunteer support.

• Stage 2: Emerging Affiliate:
  • Milestones: Formalized leadership structure, annual plan, basic financial management, successful execution of small grants, collaboration with other affiliates.
  • Support: Access to core operational funding (limited), capacity-building training, mentorship from established chapters.

• Stage 3: Established Affiliate:
  • Milestones: Legal incorporation (if applicable), diversified funding sources, professional staff or clear path to hiring, strategy planning, sustained programmatic outcomes, strategic partnerships.
  • Support: Higher, stable core funding, eligibility for major grants, strategic planning support.

• Stage 4: Sustaining Partner:
  • Milestones: Financial resilience, leadership in regional/global initiatives, active mentorship of newer groups, systems for internal governance and evaluation.
  • Support: Partnership-level funding, delegation of specific regional/global responsibilities.

The important thing here is to note that Chapters, User groups and Thematic organizations are all capable of following this path, which is why it is important to focus on complexity and capability, not on the legal relationship with the Foundation.

4. How do we balance the affiliates’ need for stable core operational funding and variable programmatic funding?

The funding model must explicitly support both sustainability and innovation. This requires a two-stream approach:

• Stable Core Funding: Provided annually based on affiliate stage and strategic plan, covering essential costs like administration, core tools, and part-time/full-time staff. This is the investment in professionalism and beating the scarcity mentality, allowing affiliates to plan beyond hand-to-mouth survival.
• Variable Programmatic Funding: Awarded for specific projects, campaigns, or initiatives. This rewards innovation, scales successful programs, and responds to emerging needs.

5. Are there any risks to approving annual funding only to recognized affiliates?

Yes. New, informal, or niche communities with high growth potential could be starved of early-stage oxygen. The affiliation process could become a bottleneck, discouraging grassroots energy. Not being recognised could create a perceived two-tier system, fostering resentment. To prevent this, it is necessary to ensure the pathway to affiliation is clear, accessible, and resourced. Have a "pre-recognition" track with seed funding for promising groups. Formally offer affiliation to currently funded, non-affiliated entities. This brings them into the fold, increasing oversight and shared mission. Continuing to fund them outside a framework is the greater risk.

Frame core funding as an investment in capacity and alignment, not a reward. Tie it to the growth model's milestones and accountable governance, not just to the affiliate label. Maintain separate, accessible pools for project/programmatic grants that are open to all, including unaffiliated user groups, to foster innovation and inclusion.

On behalf of Wikiesfera, PatriHorrillo (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you PatriHorrillo for sharing the perspective of Wikiesfera here and also connecting the dots with ongoing conversation at the AffCom recommendation talk page! Both of these inputs are well noted. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Draft proposal published and open for feedback

Hello-hello! Noting also on this talk page that we have moved on from the general discussion towards Updating_the_ecosystem_of_Wikimedia_organizations/Future_Affiliate_Landscape a more concrete draft proposal from the focus group and will be consulting on this until April 16, 2026. Pinging also User:FULBERT, User:Ad_Huikeshoven and User:PatriHorrillo who provided feedback here previously. Thank you for your kind attention! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Future Affiliate Landscape – feedback by Wikimedia Europe

This position has been prepared by the Wikimedia Europe office and endorsed by the WMEU Board. It does not replace or preclude positions or feedback submitted by WMEU members, either individually or collectively, and has not been formally adopted by the membership.

In a Nutshell

• The new affiliate model should reinforce mutuality
• Where decisions are taken and resources distributed the objectives should be broadened from compliance to partnership
• Power should be made visible through transparency of all involved and followed by accountability measures
• Funding needs to be framed as shared investment
• Hubs are vehicles for structural evolution

Summary

The proposed update to the ecosystem of Wikimedia organizations is a timely and necessary step towards greater clarity in roles, structures, and expectations across the movement. The effort to articulate shared principles and define organisational types provides a valuable basis for further development.

At the same time, the proposal reflects, in parts, existing structural dynamics within the movement that risk being reproduced through new frameworks. In particular, the balance between accountability and autonomy, as well as the implicit distribution of decision-making power, would benefit from more explicit consideration. Without this, well-intended provisions may inadvertently reinforce patterns of dependency rather than enable more resilient and equitable collaboration.

In this context, we offer a set of targeted reflections and proposed adjustments. These are intended to strengthen the proposal by ensuring that the resulting model supports a more balanced, partnership-based ecosystem.

Our feedback is guided by the following key principles:

1. Mutuality as a Foundation of Affiliation

Affiliation should be framed as a mutually beneficial instrument of movement relationships. Affiliates not only receive recognition and support but also they extend the movement’s reach, legitimacy, and capacity through their contextual expertise, networks, and long-term engagement.

Implication in practice:

Sections describing expectations and benefits should consistently reflect this reciprocity, including clearer articulation of what the movement (including the Foundation) gains from affiliates.

1. Accountability Paired with Proportional Support

Accountability mechanisms are essential, and they should be matched by all stakeholders in the movement’s ecosystem. Otherwise, they risk reinforcing asymmetries rather than strengthening performance.

Implication in practice:

Requirements around reporting, governance, and impact should be accompanied by commitments to support, co-development, and transparency in decision-making processes. This is particularly important in funding as well as in assessing affiliate health that needs to include learning and support for improvements.

1. Autonomy as a precondition for Contextual Effectiveness

Affiliates and hubs operate in diverse environments and must retain the autonomy to respond to contextual realities. This includes the ability to define priorities, develop approaches, and innovate in alignment with movement goals.

Implication in practice:

Frameworks should avoid over-prescription and ensure that recognition, funding, and evaluation mechanisms do not unintentionally constrain locally effective models.

1. Hubs as Spaces of Synergy and Innovation

Hubs should be understood as collaborative structures that enable collective action where it would not otherwise be possible. They are primarily established as an initiative of their future members or coalition partners, rooted in commonly identified and evolving needs, and aimed at reaching overarching goals that are difficult to achieve through individual efforts alone.

Implication in practice:

Hubs should emerge from demonstrated collaboration and a clear articulation of shared needs. Their role is informed by a continuous understanding of their members’ contexts and priorities, while respecting the direct relationships affiliates maintain within the movement.

1. Capacity and Impact Over Structural Leverage

Decisions on roles, responsibilities, and resource allocation should be guided by demonstrated capacity, relevance, and impact. Clear and consistently applied criteria as well as transparency of support mechanisms, decision-making processes, and impact measurement indicators, are crucial in effecting lasting change and reinforcing mutual accountability.

Implication in practice:

Funding and mandate decisions should build on existing effective work and proven track records, ensuring that successful initiatives are strengthened rather than displaced, irrespective of the institutional position of the actors involved.

The detailed comments below are intended to operationalize these principles within specific sections of the proposal, with a focus on shaping win-win scenarios, sustainable relationships, and incentives across the movement. A2namzg (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to share the feedback during the discussion period. This has been well noted and taken into account when developing the next proposal on Recognition and Funding for Movement Organizations. I apologize for such a long delay in closing the feedback loop!

• The point around muutuality has not been elaborated as such in the new proposal. It is rather focused on the strategic impact of the affiliates in the community, content, and context areas. I hope this approach makes sense.
• Accountability and proportional support has been an important consideration in highlighting the accountability criteria for different types of organizations and also the tiered model.
• Autonomy and contextual effectiveness point has been conisdered. The emphasis of the new proposal goes more towards clarity of impact, which benefits from common definition and review systems. The discussion regarding this not unintentionally constraining effective contextual models is ongoing in the current conversation phase, so we look for recommendations on how to meet both goals.
• Hubs as collaborative structures is essentially the definition in the new proposal. We hope to continue learning from Wikimedia Europe as we continue bringing clarity to the hub framework.
• Rooting funding decisions in demonstrated capacity, relevance, and impact is the direction the new proposal and hopefully the proposed approaches and framework can create more clarity for movement organizations to be successful in this.

Thank you again for your time and sharing your perspective, especially in a very clear and concise format, outlining the practical implications! We look forward to continued constructive conversation about future evolution of the landscape of movement organizations with you! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

A Proposal for Updating the Wikimedia Movement Recognition and Funding Model

As the next phase of the Movement Ecosystem pilot, the Wikimedia Foundation is publishing a proposal for community review that would update movement affiliate recognition and establish new, connected criteria for eligibility to receive Community Fund grants. The proposal also clarifies expectations for different types of affiliates, formalizes the role of hubs within the model, and aims to create a more coherent and sustainable framework for supporting Wikimedia communities over the long term.

This is a proposal. It was developed in the context of recent recommendations found in the following documents: Towards a Healthy Ecosystem of Movement Organizations, Affiliations Committee Recommendations, the Future Affiliate Landscape, and Key Challenges for a New Grantmaking Strategy. The Wikimedia Foundation plans to submit it to the Board of Trustees for consideration in September 2026, but before then we are inviting Wikimedia communities to review the draft and share feedback. The public consultation will remain open until 7 August, 2026, and will include a session at Wikimania. Feedback received during this period will help inform the version ultimately presented to the Board. We encourage anyone interested in the future of Wikimedia's movement organizations and funding model to read the proposal and participate in the discussion. RMaung (WMF) (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2026 (UTC)