Jump to content

Visible, Vibrant, Valuable: Affiliates at the Heart of a Thriving Movement

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Author: Ad Huikeshoven This (position) paper is a response to the draft paper by WMF staff and others: Towards a Healthy Ecosystem of Wikimedia Organizations. In the text below that draft paper is referenced as the THE paper.

Table of contents

[edit]

Executive Summary: The Why, the What, and the Call

[edit]

The Wikimedia movement stands at a pivotal moment. The world needs free knowledge more than ever - yet trust in information is eroding, generative AI is reshaping how knowledge is created and consumed, and our own communities face declining editorship and engagement. Meeting these challenges requires the full strength of our movement - working together.

The Wikimedia Foundation plays a vital role as steward of the global platform, trademarks, and fundraising model. But no single organization can carry this mission alone. Affiliates - the independent, community-founded organizations across the globe - are essential partners. They are the visible face, vibrant heart, and valuable force of our shared work. For more than a decade, they have expanded awareness, built communities, advocated for free knowledge, and closed content gaps. They are the ones who show up in parliaments, classrooms, museums, and town halls to make Wikimedia real in people's lives.

This paper is not about replacing the past. It is about honoring it - and building on it with renewed purpose.

We propose a simple, powerful framework: Context, Community, Content (the 3Cs) - a natural evolution of the original seven focus areas, aligned with the 2030 Movement Strategy, and designed for impact in a changing world. These are not new duties. They are a clearer way to see the work affiliates, the Foundation, and partners are already doing together:

  • Context: Making Wikimedia visible - through advocacy, partnerships, and public presence.
  • Community: Keeping the movement vibrant - by welcoming newcomers, supporting contributors, and fostering belonging.
  • Content: Ensuring Wikimedia remains valuable - by closing knowledge gaps, running global campaigns, and developing tools used by millions.

Now is the time to move from structure to strategy, from activity to impact, from isolation to collaboration. Let's empower Hubs where they strengthen regional cohesion. Let's recognize Movement Partners who are already doing affiliate-like work. Let's fund based on purpose, not just geography.

This is more than a plan. It is a call to action - to affiliates, to the Foundation, and to every person who believes in free knowledge.

Let's build a movement that is visible in society, vibrant in spirit, and valuable to the world together.

A Call to Affiliates: Lead With Us

[edit]

To every affiliate member - past and present - to every volunteer who has organized an edit-athon, trained a newcomer, stood before a policymaker, or fought for an open license: thank you.

You are not just contributors. You are stewards of a global ideal - the belief that knowledge should be free, open, and shaped by the many, not the few.

For more than a decade, you have carried this mission forward, often with little recognition, sometimes with limited resources, and always with immense dedication. You have built communities from nothing. You have changed laws. You have brought students, scientists, and seniors into our movement. You have made Wikimedia real in classrooms, parliaments, and cultural institutions.

Now, at a time when truth is under siege and AI threatens to erase human collaboration, your work is not just valuable - it is essential.

This is not about top-down direction. It's about shared purpose. It's about building on what you've already created - the 7 focus areas, the 2030 Strategy, the 157 User Groups, the 39 Chapters, the countless campaigns and connections - and asking together:

  • How do we go further?
  • How do we go faster?
  • How do we sustain this for the next generation?

We need you to:

  • Embrace the 3Cs - not as a mandate, but as a mirror of your impact.
  • Collaborate across borders and themes - through Hubs, networks, and mutual support.
  • Hold all of us accountable - the Foundation, Affiliations Committee, GRDC, and affiliates alike - to act with responsiveness, fairness, and transparency.
  • Celebrate your wins - and help us tell your story to the world.

And to the WMF, to AffCom, and to the GRDC: our role is not to control, but to empower. To remove barriers, to fund fairly, to listen deeply, and to act swiftly - in partnership with affiliates.

The future of free knowledge depends on a simple truth: we are stronger together. So let this be our promise - to each other, to the volunteers, to the readers, to the next generation of Wikimedians: We will stand with affiliates - not ahead of them, not behind them, but beside them.

Let's build a movement that is visible in society, vibrant in spirit, and valuable to the world.

1 Why Affiliates? Because the Movement Cannot Succeed Without Them

[edit]

The Wikimedia movement was never meant to be run from the center.

[edit]

Its strength has always been decentralized, driven by passion, and rooted in community. The Wikimedia Foundation provides the platform, protects the trademarks, and stewards the global infrastructure - but it cannot, and should not, be the sole engine of our mission.

Free knowledge for every human, in every language, forever - this vision is too vast, too diverse, too human to be achieved by any single organization. That is why affiliates exist.

They are not auxiliary support. They are not local franchises. They are essential actors in a global ecosystem - the ones who make our abstract ideals real in the messy, beautiful complexity of the world.

The Mission Imperative

[edit]

The world is changing fast. Trust in information is eroding. Generative AI threatens to flood the internet with synthetic content, while real human knowledge - the kind built through collaboration, verification, and care - is at risk of being drowned out.

At the same time, our own projects face internal challenges: declining editorship, aging admin pools, and growing gaps in knowledge equity.

To meet these challenges, we need more than better software or bigger fundraising campaigns. We need a movement that is alive in the world - not just online, but in classrooms, parliaments, museums, universities, and newsrooms.

And who makes that happen? Affiliates do.

They are the ones who:

  • Sit across the table from policymakers to defend the public domain.
  • Train librarians to contribute to Wikisource.
  • Partner with museums to release thousands of images into the commons.
  • Welcome students, scientists, and seniors into our community.
  • Fight disinformation by strengthening local language content.

They don't just support the movement - they are the movement, in action.

The Ecosystem Truth

[edit]

The THE paper puts it plainly:

"All organizations in the Wikimedia ecosystem - from the Wikimedia Foundation, to Affiliates, to other entities - exist, above all, to support the growth and sustainability of Wikimedia projects, the volunteer contributors who drive them, and the readers who benefit from them."

This is not a hierarchy. It's a network - and affiliates are the connective tissue.

  • The WMF can issue a global advocacy statement. But only Wikimedia Colombia can turn that into a national copyright reform that protects indigenous languages.
  • The WMF can build a grants system. But only Wikimedia UK can secure funding from the National Lottery Heritage Fund to preserve cultural memory.
  • The WMF can design a dashboard. But only Wiki Education can embed it into 1,000 university classrooms to bring in up to 19% of new English Wikipedia editors.

The Human Truth

[edit]

Let's be honest: the work of an affiliate is hard.

  • Affiliates do it without guaranteed funding. Without a global brand office. Without a legal team on speed dial. You do it because you believe - deeply - in free knowledge.
  • Affiliates are the ones who show up when no one else can. When a community is in conflict, you mediate. When a new editor feels lost, you welcome them. When a government threatens free speech, you speak up. And you do it not for recognition, but because someone has to.

This paper acknowledges this:

"Affiliates are a critical support system that helps the never-finished work of our volunteers to continue."

That phrase - never-finished work - says it all. This is not a job with an end date. It's a calling.

A Letter to Affiliates:

[edit]

To every affiliate leader, board member, volunteer, and staff person reading this:

  • We see you.
  • We see the years you've given. The meetings you've chaired. The grants you've written. The partnerships you've built. The communities you've nurtured.
  • We see how you've carried the weight of this movement - often with little support, less funding, and constant questions about your role. And we are here to say: you are not a footnote in our strategy. You are central to our survival.

The world needs Wikimedia - and Wikimedia needs you. Not as implementers of our plans. Not as recipients of our grants. But as co-architects of our future.

This paper is not about telling you what to do. It's about affirming what you already know: The movement cannot succeed without you.

Now, let's build the structures, the recognition, and the support that reflect that truth. Because if we are to make free knowledge truly universal, we must do it together - not from the top down, but from the ground up.

2. The 3Vs: How Affiliates Make Wikimedia Stronger

[edit]

The strength of the Wikimedia movement has never been in its platform alone - it lives in its people, its purpose, and its presence in the world. And for over a decade, affiliates have been the force that turns vision into reality.

To understand their impact, we don't need jargon or abstract frameworks. We need words that resonate with lived experience - words that reflect what affiliates do, what they feel, and what the world sees when they act.

Those words are: Visible, Vibrant, Valuable. These are not slogans. They are proof points - each one a testament to the indispensable role affiliates play in making free knowledge not just possible, but powerful.

2.1 Visible: Affiliates Are the Face of Free Knowledge

[edit]

Affiliates make Wikimedia visible - not just as a website, but as a movement with moral authority, cultural relevance, and political voice.

While the Wikimedia Foundation operates globally, affiliates operate locally, authentically, and with trust. They are the ones who sit across from ministers, partner with museums, appear in news segments, and stand beside librarians and educators to say: This knowledge belongs to everyone.

As the THE paper states:

"Affiliates are typically the actors best positioned to engage policymakers, media, and institutions at the local, national and sometimes regional level."

This is visibility with impact.

  • Wikimedia Colombia influenced national copyright reforms to protect the public domain and indigenous languages.
  • Wikimedia UK advocated for Wikipedia to be exempted from harmful provisions in the UK's Online Safety Act.
  • Wikimedia Sweden co-leads the Heritage Guard Network, working with Ukraine, Poland, and Georgia to protect cultural heritage during war and climate disasters.
  • Wikimedia Brasil partners with the Museu Paulista to open thousands of cultural assets to the world.

These are not isolated wins. They are examples of a global pattern: affiliates embedding Wikimedia into the fabric of society.

And it's working. As the THE paper notes, affiliates "increase Wikimedia's visibility, advocate for public policies favorable to the Wikimedia model, mission, and values, and enhance our reputation with specific audiences."

The affiliates are not just supporting the movement, they are representing it - and making it real.

2.2 Vibrant: Affiliates Are the Pulse of the Community

[edit]

The movement is not a machine. It is a living ecosystem - and affiliates are the ones who keep it breathing, beating, and growing.

  • When a new editor joins, who welcomes them?
  • When an admin feels overwhelmed, who supports them?
  • When a community is divided, who brings them back together?

Affiliates do.

They run the meetups, host the bootcamps, organize the hackathons, and answer the late-night messages. They are the human infrastructure of the movement.

As the THE paper affirms:

"Affiliates can help keep contributor communities thriving, fostering human connection and solidarity."

And the energy is real.

  • Wikimedia France runs AdminConf, a vital space for moderators to recharge and connect.
  • Wikimedia Argentina and Wikimedia UK lead the Volunteer Supporters Network, sharing best practices for volunteer care across borders.
  • Wikimedia Armenia runs long-standing Wiki clubs for youth - a pipeline of future contributors.
  • Indic Wikimedia Hackathons bring together technical contributors across South Asia to solve real problems.

Even the growth of User Groups - now 157 strong - is a sign of vibrancy. The THE paper observes:

"Over the last ten years, the number of User Groups has grown very quickly. This clearly shows that many language and editor communities are more interested and involved in our projects."

But vibrancy isn't just about numbers. It's about belonging.

  • When Wiki Education brings up to 19% of new active editors to English Wikipedia - and up to 70% of them are women or nonbinary - that's not just growth. That's inclusion in action.
  • hen Wikipuentes in Argentina or WikiLatih in Indonesia train newcomers in their own languages and contexts, that's not just onboarding. That's community with care.

The affiliates are not just organizing events, they are nurturing a movement that breathes with life.

2.3 Valuable: Affiliates Are the Engine of Impact

[edit]

The world doesn't need more content. It needs trustworthy, equitable, and accessible knowledge - and affiliates are the ones who make that happen.

They don't just add articles. They close gaps, challenge bias, and build tools that scale impact for millions.

As the THE paper puts it:

"Affiliates are 'force multipliers' that help scale the best collaborative instincts of our community."

And the results speak for themselves:

  • Art + Feminism, Wiki Education, and Les sans pagEs have led global campaigns to close the Wikipedia gender gap - one biography at a time.
  • CEE Spring and Wikipedia Asian Month involve dozens of affiliates in regional content drives that improve coverage in underrepresented languages and geographies.
  • Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves Earth, and Wiki Loves Africa are among the largest photography campaigns in the world - all volunteer-led, all powered by affiliates.

But the value goes deeper. Affiliates are also innovators - building the tools that power the future of Wikimedia.

  • Wikidata, arguably the most significant Wikimedia project since Wikipedia, was launched by Wikimedia Deutschland.
  • The Wiki Education Dashboard - now adapted into the Programs & Events Dashboard used globally - was built by a Movement Partner to scale impact.
  • Wikimedia Brasil is redeveloping Quick Statements, a critical tool for Wikidata editors.
  • Wikimedia Israel adopted and maintained the GLAMWiki Dashboard, ensuring its survival.

Even when the THE paper acknowledges past challenges - "this hasn't always been well-coordinated" - it also recognizes the potential:

"Qualified Affiliates and Movement Partners have a key role" in technical innovation.

Affiliates are not just contributors, they are builders - of knowledge, of tools, of trust.

The 3Vs in Action: A Movement That Matters

[edit]
The 3Vs in Action
3V What It Means What It Looks Like
Visible Wikimedia is known, trusted, and engaged in society Policy wins, media coverage, institutional partnerships
Vibrant Contributors are connected, supported, and growing Training programs, youth outreach, volunteer care
Valuable Knowledge is equitable, reliable, and impactful Gender gap campaigns, regional content drives, tool development

The 3Vs are not a new strategy. They are a mirror - reflecting what affiliates have been doing all along. And they are a mandate - to continue, to expand, and to be recognized for the essential role you play. Because when the world asks: Why does Wikimedia matter? The answer is not found in a server log.

  • It's found in a classroom in Armenia,
  • a parliament in Bogotá,
  • a museum in São Paulo,
  • a university in Toronto,
  • a hackathon in Delhi.

It's found in affiliates and their members.

  • The affiliates make Wikimedia visible.
  • The affiliates make it vibrant.
  • The affiliates make it valuable.

And because of that - the movement stands strong.

3. The 3Cs: A Framework Built on 14+ Years of Success

[edit]

The strength of a movement is not found in its structures, but in its continuity of purpose. For 14+ years, Wikimedia affiliates have been the steady hands guiding local communities through change, challenge, and growth. They have welcomed newcomers, defended free knowledge, partnered with institutions, and filled content gaps-not because of a mandate, but because of a mission.

Now, as we face new global pressures-from AI to declining trust-it's not the time to reinvent the wheel. It's time to honor what has worked, clarify what matters most, and focus our energy where it counts. The 3Cs-Context, Community, Content-are not a departure from the past.

They are a refinement of it: a clear, coherent evolution of the original 7 focus areas set in 2011, fully aligned with the 2030 Movement Strategy, and designed to amplify the impact affiliates are already making.

This is not a replacement. It is a homecoming-a way to say: We see the work you've been doing. We value it. And now, let's make it even stronger.

3.1 Context ↔ The Legacy of Awareness, Advocacy & Partnerships

[edit]
"Affiliates are typically the actors best positioned to engage policymakers, media, and institutions at the local, national and sometimes regional level."

The Context focus area builds directly on four of the original 7 focus areas:

  1. Expanding awareness of Wikimedia
  2. Advocating for free knowledge
  3. Building GLAM and institutional connections
  4. Increasing financial resources

These were about making Wikimedia matter in the real world-and that's exactly what Context does today. Affiliates don't just support Wikipedia. They represent it-in parliaments, in museums, in universities, and in the public eye.

  • When Wikimedia Colombia influenced national copyright reform to protect the public domain and indigenous languages, that was Context.
  • When Wikimedia UK secured an exemption for Wikipedia in the UK's Online Safety Act, that was Context.
  • When Wikimedia Brasil partners with the Museu Paulista to open thousands of cultural assets to the world, that was Context.
  • When Art + Feminism raises millions from the Ford Foundation to close the gender gap, that was Context-because funding is part of visibility and trust.

And now, Context adds strategic clarity:

  • It's not just about awareness-it's about relevance.
  • Not just about partnerships-but about alliances with open movements (e.g., Creative Commons, OpenStreetMap).
  • Not just about advocacy-but about shaping policy in an era of AI and disinformation.

This is the same work-with a sharper focus, clearer goals, and greater impact.

3.2 Community ↔ The Legacy of Connection and Growth

[edit]
"Affiliates can help keep contributor communities thriving, fostering human connection and solidarity..."

The Community focus area grows from two foundational pillars of the 2011 strategy:

  1. Expanding and diversifying communities
  2. Building community bonds through activities

But today, "community" means more than meetups and mailing lists. It means resilience, inclusion, and sustainability in a world where volunteer burnout is rising and newcomer retention is falling. Affiliates are the human infrastructure of the movement-the ones who train, welcome, support, and care.

  • When Wikimedia France hosts AdminConf to support moderators, that's Community.
  • When Wiki Education brings in 19% of new active editors on English Wikipedia-and 70% are women or nonbinary-that's Community with equity at its core.
  • When Wikipuentes in Argentina or WikiLatih in Indonesia train newcomers in their own languages, that's Community with cultural fluency.
  • When the Volunteer Supporters Network (led by Wikimedia Argentina and UK) shares best practices for volunteer well-being, that's Community at scale.

And now, Community gives us a shared language:

  • It's not just about events-it's about onboarding and retention.
  • Not just about bonding-but about capacity-building and resilience.
  • Not just about numbers-but about who feels welcome, who stays, and who leads.

This is the heart of the movement-and affiliates are its steady pulse.

3.3 Content ↔ The Legacy of Knowledge Creation

[edit]
"Affiliates are 'force multipliers' that help scale the best collaborative instincts of our community."

The Content focus area is rooted in two of the original 7 focus areas:

  1. Adding content via knowledge-creation projects
  2. Building GLAM connections (when they result in content)

But today, content isn't just about volume-it's about value. Who is represented? Whose knowledge is missing? How is our content used-by readers, by AI, by educators? Affiliates don't just add articles. They close gaps, challenge bias, and build tools that empower others.

  • When Art + Feminism runs global edit-a-thons to improve coverage of women and marginalized groups, that's Content.
  • When CEE Spring or Wikipedia Asian Month involve dozens of affiliates in regional content drives, that's Content with coordination.
  • When Wiki Loves Monuments becomes one of the largest photography competitions in the world, that's Content with global reach.
  • And when Wikimedia Deutschland launches Wikidata-now the backbone of AI and open data-that's Content at its most transformative.

But the THE paper also acknowledges a crucial evolution:

"Much technical innovation has come over the years from Affiliates and Movement Partners."

So Content now includes tool development-because tools are how knowledge is created, shared, and sustained.

  • The Wiki Education Dashboard → adapted into the Programs & Events Dashboard used by thousands.
  • Quick Statements redeveloped by Wikimedia Brasil for Wikidata editors.
  • GLAMWiki Dashboard adopted by Wikimedia Israel.

These are not side projects. They are content infrastructure-built by affiliates, for the movement.

The 3Cs: Then & Now

[edit]
2011 Focus Areas 2025 3Cs Framework Continuity & Evolution
Expanding awareness of Wikimedia → Context From awareness to visibility with impact
Advocating for free knowledge → Context From advocacy to policy influence and public trust
Building GLAM connections → Context (partnerships) & Content (outputs) Dual role clarified: relationship vs. result
Increasing financial resources → Context Fundraising as part of movement sustainability
Expanding and diversifying communities → Community Now focused on "retention, inclusion, and resilience"
Building community bonds → Community Now includes "training, support, and well-being"
Adding content via projects → Content Now includes strategic campaigns and tool development

A Framework That Honors the Past, Powers the Future

[edit]

The 3Cs do not erase history - they fulfill it. They take the spirit of the 2011 focus areas-decentralized, passionate, purpose-driven-and give them strategic clarity for 2030. And they align perfectly with the 10 recommendations of the Movement Strategy:

  • Knowledge Equity? Driven by Content campaigns.
  • Community Health? Nurtured by Community support.
  • Partnerships? Built through Context.
  • Innovation? Co-created by affiliates in Content and Community.
  • Sustainability? Funded and governed through Context.

This is not a new direction. It is the same mission, refocused for a new era. And affiliates-the ones who have been doing this work for 14+ years-are not being asked to start over. They are being asked to step into their power.

Because the 3Cs are not a checklist. They are a call to continue-with pride, with purpose, and with the full recognition of the movement behind them.

4. Anchored in 2030: How the 3Cs Deliver the Strategy

[edit]

The 3Cs-Context, Community, Content - are not just a framework for affiliates. They are a strategic engine for delivering the Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy, particularly its 10 recommendations. When we align the 3Cs (and their emotional counterparts, the 3Vs: Visible, Vibrant, Valuable) with these recommendations, we see a powerful truth:

Affiliates are not waiting to act on 2030. They are already leading it.

This section shows how the 3Cs/3Vs directly advance each of the 10 strategic recommendations-not as abstract goals, but as lived practice in affiliate communities around the world.

4.1 Increase the Sustainability of our Movement

[edit]
  • Context (Visible): Affiliates increase Wikimedia's visibility and public trust, making it easier to attract donors and partners.
    • Example: Wikimedia UK's success with the National Lottery Heritage Fund; Art + Feminism funded by Ford Foundation.
  • Community (Vibrant): Affiliates support volunteer well-being, reduce burnout, and build resilient contributor ecosystems.
    • Example:** Volunteer Supporters Network (led by Wikimedia Argentina & UK).
  • Content (Valuable): By closing knowledge gaps, affiliates ensure the movement remains relevant and impactful-a key driver of long-term sustainability.

The 3Cs make the movement financially, humanly, and intellectually sustainable.

4.2 Improve User Experience

[edit]
  • Community (Vibrant): Affiliates run onboarding programs that ease the newcomer journey.
    • Example: Wiki Education's university courses, Wikimedia Indonesia's WikiLatih, Wikimedia Czech Republic's Seniors Write Wikipedia.
  • Context (Visible): Through GLAM and institutional partnerships, affiliates help readers access knowledge in trusted spaces.
  • Content (Valuable): By improving coverage in underrepresented languages and topics, affiliates make content more usable and relevant.

Affiliates are frontline UX designers-they humanize the platform.

4.3 Provide for Safety and Inclusion

[edit]
  • Community (Vibrant): Affiliates create safe, welcoming spaces for contributors from marginalized groups.
    • Example: Art + Feminism, Whose Knowledge?, AfroCROWD.
  • Context (Visible): They advocate for policies that protect free knowledge and digital rights.
  • Content (Valuable): Closing gender, racial, and geographic content gaps makes knowledge safer and more inclusive.

The 3Cs embody safety and inclusion-in action, not just policy.

4.4 Ensure Equity in Decision-Making

[edit]
  • Context (Visible): Affiliates represent local voices in global conversations, ensuring diverse perspectives are heard.
  • Community (Vibrant): They empower local communities to self-organize and lead.
  • Content (Valuable): By supporting underrepresented knowledge, they challenge systemic bias in what is deemed "notable."

Affiliates practice subsidiarity-decisions are made close to the people they affect.

4.5 Coordinate Across Stakeholders

[edit]
  • Context (Visible): Affiliates are natural connectors-between institutions, movements, and governments.
    • Example: Wiki in Africa's partnerships with UNESCO; CEE Hub's regional coordination.
  • Community (Vibrant): They foster collaboration through events, networks, and shared training.
  • Content (Valuable): Campaigns like Wiki Loves Monuments require massive cross-stakeholder coordination.

Affiliates don't just coordinate-they build trust across silos.

4.6 Invest in Skills and Leadership Development

[edit]
  • Community (Vibrant): This is the core of what affiliates do-training, mentoring, leadership pipelines.
    • Example: Wikimedia France's AdminConf, Wikipuentes in Argentina.
  • Context (Visible): By building capacity in local institutions, they expand the movement's reach.
  • Content (Valuable): Skilled contributors create higher-quality, more reliable knowledge.

Affiliates are the primary investors in human capital.

4.7 Manage Internal Knowledge

[edit]
  • Community (Vibrant): Affiliates document best practices, share learnings, and mentor new groups.
    • Example: The CEE Hub's shared resources for regional affiliates.
  • Context (Visible): They maintain institutional memory through annual reports, dashboards, and community archives.
  • Content (Valuable): Internal knowledge sharing prevents duplication and scales impact.

Affiliates turn experience into wisdom-and wisdom into action.

4.8 Identify Topics for Impact

[edit]
  • Content (Valuable): This is where affiliates shine-targeting high-impact knowledge gaps.
    • Example: Wiki Education's Communicating Science campaign; environmental coverage by Wikimedia South Africa.
  • Context (Visible): They partner with experts and institutions to identify what knowledge matters most.
  • Community (Vibrant): They mobilize contributors around shared thematic goals.

Affiliates don't just add content-they add meaningful content.

4.9 Innovate in Free Knowledge

[edit]
  • Content (Valuable): Affiliates are tech innovators-building tools that scale impact.
    • Example: Wikidata (by WMDE), Programs & Events Dashboard (adapted from Wiki Education), Quick Statements (by Wikimedia Brasil).
  • Context (Visible): They pilot new models (e.g., WikiAfrica's mobile editing).
  • Community (Vibrant): They experiment with new contributor models (e.g., youth clubs, senior programs).

Affiliates are not just users of technology-they are co-creators.

4.10 Evaluate, Iterate, and Adapt

[edit]
  • All 3Cs: Affiliates are already using data to measure impact-through dashboards, reports, and grant evaluations.
    • Example: Programs & Events Dashboard tracks editor retention; WMDE evaluates policy impact.
  • Visible: They report on advocacy wins.
  • Vibrant: They assess community health.
  • Valuable: They measure content growth and reuse.

Affiliates live the cycle of evaluation and adaptation-because survival depends on it.

Summary Table: 3Cs/3Vs ↔ 2030 Recommendations

[edit]
2030 Recommendation 3C Primary Driver 3V Expression Affiliate Example
1. Increase Sustainability Context & Community Visible & Vibrant Wikimedia UK's National Lottery funding
2. Improve User Experience Community Vibrant Wiki Education onboarding
3. Safety & Inclusion Community Vibrant Art + Feminism gender gap campaigns
4. Equity in Decision-Making Context Visible CEE Hub regional representation
5. Coordinate Across Stakeholders Context Visible Wiki in Africa + UNESCO
6. Invest in Skills Community Vibrant AdminConf, Wikipuentes
7. Manage Internal Knowledge Community Vibrant CEE Hub knowledge sharing
8. Identify Topics for Impact Content Valuable Communicating Science campaign
9. Innovate in Free Knowledge Content Valuable Wikidata, Dashboard tools
10. Evaluate, Iterate, Adapt All 3Cs All 3Vs Use of Programs & Events Dashboard

Conclusion: The 3Cs Are the 2030 Strategy in Motion

[edit]

The 2030 Strategy asks for a movement that is sustainable, equitable, inclusive, and impactful. The 3Cs show us how to get there-through the daily, dedicated work of affiliates. The 3Vs remind us why it matters-because when affiliates make Wikimedia visible, vibrant, and valuable, they are not just supporting the movement.

They are living its future. And they've been doing it for years. Now, it's time to recognize them not as implementers-but as architects of the 2030 vision.

5. Embracing the Wider Open Movement

[edit]

The Wikimedia movement does not exist in isolation. We are part of a larger ecosystem of open knowledge, digital rights, and collaborative creation-a global network of people and organizations who believe that information should be free, accessible, and shaped by the many, not the few.

Affiliates have always been connectors, not just within Wikimedia, but beyond it. They don't just work for the movement-they work with others to amplify impact, build solidarity, and defend shared values.

Now, more than ever, we must formally recognize and embrace this truth: the future of free knowledge depends on collaboration across movements.

This section shows how the 3Cs/3Vs framework enables affiliates to lead in this space-by welcoming Movement Partners, empowering Hubs, and building alliances with open knowledge allies.

5.1 Movement Partners: Not "Others" - But "Us"

[edit]

The line between "Wikimedia Affiliate" and "Movement Partner" has always been blurry-because the work is the same.

Organizations like Wiki Education, Art + Feminism, Whose Knowledge?, Wiki in Africa, and AfroCROWD are not peripheral players. They are central to our impact-closing gender gaps, expanding knowledge equity, and bringing in thousands of new contributors.

Yet, despite their contributions, they lack formal recognition. As the THE paper acknowledges:

"There are some less common partners who, even with a broader mission, contribute so much to Wikimedia and are so involved in the movement that they deserve a recognized place in our system."

Why Formal Recognition Matters

[edit]
  • Legitimacy: A formal category says: You belong.
  • Equity: It ensures fair access to funding, trademarks, and decision-making.
  • Clarity: It removes confusion about roles and expectations.

The 3Cs/3Vs Alignment

[edit]
3C How Movement Partners Contribute Example
Context (Visible) They raise awareness, advocate for open knowledge, and mobilize resources. Art + Feminism funded by Ford Foundation; Wiki Education by Mellon Foundation.
Community (Vibrant) They onboard and support contributors, especially from underrepresented groups. Wiki Education brings in 19% of new active editors on English Wikipedia, 70% women/nonbinary.
Content (Valuable) They run high-impact campaigns that close knowledge gaps. Art + Feminism closes gender gaps; Whose Knowledge? centers marginalized voices.

Recommendation:

[edit]

Create a formal Movement Partners category-with tailored recognition criteria, funding pathways, and participation in governance (e.g., GRDC, Hub coordination).

This isn't about creating a second-class status. It's about honoring diverse ways of contributing and ensuring no one is left in the shadows.

5.2 Hubs: Solidarity in Action

[edit]

Hubs are not bureaucracy. They are mutual aid networks-where affiliates come together to share resources, solve problems, and scale impact.

As the THE paper asks:

"Could Hubs offer an alternative to the Chapter model in large, diverse countries... by providing shared support services and helping to bring together a network of smaller local Affiliates, partners, and project communities?"

Yes-and they already are.

Existing Hub Models

[edit]
  • CEE Hub: Coordinates regional campaigns like CEE Spring, supports youth engagement, and fosters collaboration across Central and Eastern Europe.
  • ESEAP Hub: Connects affiliates in East, South, and Southeast Asia and the Pacific, sharing best practices and amplifying regional voices.
  • Language Diversity Hub: Works to strengthen underrepresented language communities.
  • Wikipedia & Education User Group: Exploring a "Hub-like structure" to support education programs globally.

These are not top-down structures. They are bottom-up expressions of solidarity.

The 3Cs/3Vs Alignment

[edit]
3C How Hubs Contribute Example
Context (Visible) They amplify regional advocacy and partnerships. CEE Hub supports copyright reform efforts across the region.
Community (Vibrant) They provide peer support, training, and conflict resolution. ESEAP Hub runs capacity-building workshops for new affiliates.
Content (Valuable) They coordinate large-scale content campaigns. CEE Spring involves dozens of affiliates in improving regional coverage.

Recommendation:

[edit]

Support Hubs as recognized collaborative infrastructure, not just pilot projects. Fund them through dedicated thematic or regional pools, and empower them to distribute resources locally.

5.3 Alliances with the Open Knowledge Ecosystem

[edit]

Affiliates don't just connect within the movement-they connect beyond it. They are the ones who build bridges to:

  • Creative Commons (shared licensing, open culture)
  • OpenStreetMap (open data, community mapping)
  • Internet Society (digital rights, internet freedom)
  • GLAM networks (museums, libraries, archives)
  • Academic and research institutions
  • Environmental and human rights organizations

As the THE paper notes:

"Affiliates are well placed to build alliances and collaborations with other aligned movements and communities on the ground."

The 3Cs/3Vs Alignment

[edit]
3C How Alliances Expand Impact Example
Context (Visible) Joint advocacy strengthens policy influence. Wikimedia Sweden co-leads the Heritage Guard Network with Ukraine, Poland, and Georgia.
Community (Vibrant) Shared training and events grow contributor networks. Indic Wikimedia Hackathons bring together technical contributors across South Asia.
Content (Valuable) Cross-movement content sharing enriches knowledge. Wiki Loves Monuments integrates with UNESCO's World Heritage program.

Recommendation:

[edit]

Encourage and fund inter-movement collaboration-through co-branded campaigns, shared dashboards, and joint grant opportunities.

A Movement That Reaches Out - Not Just In

[edit]

The 3Cs/3Vs framework doesn't just strengthen affiliates. It connects them-to each other, to partners, and to the wider world.

Concept Role in the Ecosystem
Movement Partners Formalize the informal-bring trusted allies into the fold.
Hubs Turn competition into collaboration-scale impact through solidarity.
Alliances Expand relevance-show that free knowledge is part of a larger fight for justice, equity, and truth.

This is not about adding more structures. It's about removing silos, recognizing contributions, and building power together.

Because the challenges we face-AI, disinformation, inequity-are too big for any one group to solve. But together-as a visible, vibrant, and valuable movement-we can meet them. And we already are.

6. Editor Retention - Caring for the Human Core of Our Movement

[edit]

The Wikimedia movement is built on a radical idea: that knowledge can be free, open, and collaboratively shaped by people from every corner of the world. But behind every article, citation, and image upload stands a human being-a volunteer who chose to give their time, energy, and care to a shared mission.

And yet, too many of those volunteers leave. Not because they lack passion, but because their experiences are sometimes unwelcoming, exhausting, or discouraging. This is not just a failure of content. It is a challenge of care.

Editor retention is often framed as a technical problem, to be solved with dashboards, algorithms, or automated workflows. These tools matter, but at heart, retention is a human challenge-one that affiliates are uniquely positioned to help address.

Because when we talk about making the movement visible, vibrant, and valuable, we must remember:

  • Visible means seeing and recognizing each other.
  • Vibrant means contributors feel connected, supported, and safe.
  • Valuable means knowledge is trustworthy, but also grounded in the integrity of those who build it.

Affiliates are not just organizers. They are community builders and connectors. They can help shift cultures of gatekeeping into cultures of belonging, and provide the care that sustains volunteers over years, not just days.

Why Editors Leave: Shared Challenges

[edit]

Research and community feedback highlight four interconnected reasons why many contributors step away:

  • Unwelcoming norms: Newcomers sometimes experience suspicion or harsh feedback instead of support.
  • Isolation: The myth of the "self-taught Wikipedian" overlooks the need for mentorship and connection.
  • Burnout: Veteran editors, admins, and patrollers carry heavy loads with little recognition or care.
  • Disconnect between offline and online: Participants from affiliate-led events often struggle to find sustained support once they return to online spaces.

These challenges are not the fault of any one group. They are shared responsibilities-and require shared solutions.

The Affiliate Advantage: Programs That Heal and Grow

[edit]

Because affiliates work directly in communities, they are well placed to complement WMF's platform-level tools and individual editors' mentorship by providing continuity, support, and care.

Here are five impactful, low-cost, high-compassion programs affiliates can lead:

  • Newcomer Guardians: Pairing every new editor from an affiliate event with a mentor for their first 90 days.
  • Veteran Care Circles: Safe spaces for experienced editors to share struggles, celebrate contributions, and prevent burnout.
  • Constructive Editing Certification: Training and recognition for editors who model kindness and inclusion.
  • Safe Zone Projects: Thematic initiatives (e.g., Women in STEM, Indigenous Knowledge) with civility norms and protections.
  • Bridge Teams: Affiliate members who stay connected with participants after events, helping them navigate the online community.

Each of these builds on the 3Cs/3Vs framework: Community care makes the movement vibrant; Context gives editors visibility and recognition; Content becomes more valuable when diverse contributors stay and thrive.

A Call for Compassion

[edit]

Before we propose solutions, we pause to recognize:

  • To the newcomer whose first edit was reverted without explanation: your intent matters.
  • To the student whose article was challenged for deletion: your voice is valid.
  • To the veteran who has spent years patrolling and mentoring: you are the backbone of this project, and you deserve support.

Retention is not about replacing "old" editors with new ones. It is about creating a community where all can thrive-where newcomers are nurtured, veterans are sustained, and everyone feels they belong.

Conclusion: The Heartbeat of the Movement

[edit]

Editor retention is not just a metric. It is a moral imperative. Every editor who leaves takes with them not just edits, but hope, potential, and belief in the idea of shared knowledge.

Affiliates, WMF, and volunteers together can change this trajectory. Affiliates bring proximity and compassion. WMF brings infrastructure and tools. Communities bring wisdom and culture. Together, we can build programs that honor veterans, welcome newcomers, and restore joy to contributing.

The question is not How do we get more editors? but How do we become a movement worth staying in? That is the work. That is our calling. And that is how we make the movement truly visible, vibrant, and valuable.

7. From Paper to Practice: Seven Shared Actions

[edit]

A framework is only as strong as the actions that follow. The 3Cs and 3Vs provide clarity-but impact comes from how we work together. Here are seven actions affiliates, WMF, committees, and partners can take together to strengthen our movement:

1. Affiliates as Movement Anchors

[edit]

Affiliates are not peripheral. They are the places where Wikimedia becomes real in communities, schools, legislatures, and cultural institutions.

Action: Recognize affiliates as movement anchors in strategy and funding, alongside the Wikimedia Foundation, hubs, and thematic partners.

2. Invest in Care and Capacity

[edit]

Too many affiliates struggle with insecure funding, short-term grants, or fragile staffing. This limits their ability to serve communities.

Action: Work toward longer-term, more flexible funding models, with accountability that reflects impact, not just paperwork.

3. Hubs as Connectors, Not Replacements

[edit]

Hubs can amplify regional and thematic collaboration, but they are not a substitute for affiliates.

Action: Pilot hubs as facilitators of cooperation and shared services, designed with and for affiliates, not over them.

4. Recognition Pathways for Partners

[edit]

The movement has long relied on mission-aligned organizations-like Wiki Education, Open Foundation West Africa, and GLAM consortia-that operate like affiliates but don't fit current models.

Action: Explore a Movement Partner recognition pathway, parallel to User Groups, so that more allies can be fairly acknowledged and supported.

5. Bridge Online and Offline

[edit]

Offline programs often spark energy that dissipates once contributors face the complexities of online editing.

Action: Co-develop bridge programs-affiliate-led mentorship and WMF-supported technical tools-to sustain newcomers beyond the first edit-a-thon.

6. Shared Accountability and Transparency

[edit]

Accountability must flow in all directions: affiliates to communities, WMF to affiliates, committees to movement governance, and all of us to the public.

Action: Create shared dashboards of commitments and outcomes, co-owned by affiliates, WMF, and movement bodies, so we can all track progress openly.

7. Celebrate and Amplify Success

[edit]

The movement often under-celebrates its local heroes. Success stories from affiliates deserve more visibility across the movement and in the wider world.

Action: Establish a global storytelling initiative, where affiliates and WMF work side by side to highlight impact, inspire new contributors, and engage partners.

Summary: 7 Actions, 7 Promises

[edit]
Action What It Delivers
1. Refresh AffCom Focus, clarity, and empowerment
2. Adopt the 3Cs Impact-aligned funding and recognition
3. Recognize Movement Partners Inclusion and equity for all contributors
4. Fund Thematic Work Support for global priorities beyond geography
5. Invest in Storytelling Visibility for affiliate impact
6. Strengthen Tech Collaboration Sustainable innovation from the edges
7. Co-Create a Theory of Change Shared ownership of our future

Closing Thought

[edit]

These actions are not exhaustive, nor prescriptive. They are starting points-an invitation to affiliates, WMF, and movement bodies to shape the future together.

The pause on new affiliate recognition offers a moment to reflect, strengthen existing groups, and design fairer systems. Let us use it wisely: not as a freeze, but as a chance to consolidate and prepare for the next wave of growth.

By taking these steps, we will move closer to a movement that is visible, vibrant, and valuable-for affiliates, for WMF, for every volunteer, and for every reader who relies on free knowledge.

8. Conclusion: Building Together

[edit]

The Wikimedia movement is a living ecosystem. It thrives when every part-volunteers, affiliates, the Wikimedia Foundation, hubs, committees, and partners-plays its role in balance. No single part can carry the weight alone.

Affiliates are the anchors in communities. They make the movement visible on the ground, vibrant in spirit, and valuable in impact. The Wikimedia Foundation provides global stewardship - of platforms, resources, and advocacy. Volunteers bring the creativity, dedication, and culture that animate it all.

We stand at a turning point. The pause on recognizing new affiliates is not an ending, but an opening: a chance to strengthen what exists, refine how we recognize and support one another, and ensure the system is ready for sustainable growth.

If we succeed, we will not just preserve what Wikimedia has achieved. We will expand it:

  • into new languages,
  • into classrooms and legislatures,
  • into cultural institutions and digital platforms,
  • into the everyday lives of people who need reliable knowledge.

This paper is not only a strategy. It is a commitment. A commitment that:

  • affiliates will not be left on the margins,
  • the Foundation will not carry the mission alone, and
  • together we will make Wikimedia stronger, fairer, and more impactful.

The call is clear: let us build a movement that is visible to society, vibrant in community, and valuable to the world-together, beside each other, as equals in a shared mission.

Appendix. Answers to the 55 questions in the THE paper

[edit]

Final Summary: From Questions to Commitments

[edit]

The original Towards a Healthier Movement Ecosystem paper raises 55 critical, often uncomfortable questions about the role, structure, and future of affiliates. It is diagnostic, cautious, and rooted in strategic uncertainty.

The revised Visible, Vibrant, Valuable paper answers not with more questions, but with clear, compassionate commitments:

  • It honors the past while refocusing for the future.
  • It replaces doubt with trust, structure with story, and compliance with care.
  • It transforms the 3Cs from a framework into a shared mission, and the 3Vs from a slogan into a movement identity.

Where the original paper asks, What should we do? The revised paper answers:

"We already are. And we're ready to go further - together."
# Question from THE Paper Answer in THE Paper Answer in Visible, Vibrant, Valuable (Revised Paper)
1 What is the fundamental idea behind the ecosystem? All organizations in the Wikimedia ecosystem... exist, above all, to support the growth and sustainability of Wikimedia projects, the volunteer contributors who drive them, and the readers who benefit from them. The ecosystem exists to make free knowledge visible, vibrant, and valuable through shared purpose and human-centered care.
2 Why do we need this paper? To "pose key strategic questions about all actors in the ecosystem" and guide future discussions and solutions to challenges preventing effective delivery of what the world needs. To honour 14+ years of affiliate work and transform strategy into a movement-wide call to action-not just analysis, but inspiration and shared ownership.
3 What are the existing types of movement organizations? Chapters, Thematic Organizations, and User Groups. Also mentions unaffiliated entities and Movement Partners (implied). Same categories, but explicitly calls for formal recognition of Movement Partners and support for Hubs as collaborative infrastructure.
4 How many User Groups are there? Not specified in the text, but implies rapid growth: "Over the last ten years, the number of User Groups has grown very quickly." References the same growth, noting there are now 157 User Groups, symbolizing a vibrant, expanding movement.
5 What should be the updated focus areas for Affiliates? Proposes refreshing focus areas around Context, Community, Content (in Appendix). Fully adopts the 3Cs as a strategic evolution of the 7 focus areas, framing them as a natural, impact-driven progression.
6 How do we evaluate current affiliate models? Evaluate current eligibility requirements and expectations for maintaining recognition... modify recognition procedures using new guidelines. Calls for a refresh of AffCom to focus on recognition, not conflict resolution, and to co-create a shared theory of change with affiliates.
7 Should we incorporate Movement Partners? There are some less common partners who... contribute so much to Wikimedia that they deserve a recognized place in our system. Proposes a formal Movement Partners category with tailored recognition criteria, funding pathways, and participation in governance (e.g., GRDC, Hub coordination).
8 What about Hubs? Could Hubs offer an alternative to the Chapter model... by providing shared support services? Hubs as solidarity networks, not bureaucracy. Recommends funding and empowering them as regional collaboration engines.
9 How should we handle derecognition? Begin conversations, where appropriate, about derecognition. Does not emphasize derecognition. Focuses instead on support, clarity, and renewal-shifting from compliance to co-ownership.
10 How can we improve resource distribution? Address funding for global thematic areas... given that current funding mechanisms are primarily geographically based. Proposes thematic funding pools (e.g., gender equity, education, climate) to break free from geography-only funding and support global priorities.
11 What role do Affiliates play in advocacy? Affiliates are typically the actors best positioned to engage policymakers, media, and institutions at the local, national and sometimes regional level. Positions affiliates as the visible face of Wikimedia, citing examples like Wikimedia Colombia (copyright reform) and UK (Online Safety Act) as proof of impact.
12 Are Movement Partners already part of the community? The authors believe that Movement Partners are already part of our community and deserve to enjoy a clearer position. Movement Partners like Wiki Education, Art + Feminism, and Wiki in Africa are core contributors and deserve formal recognition as a distinct category.
13 Do Movement Partners bring unique value? Yes-they "bring expertise, creativity, and access to audiences that make the movement stronger," even if they serve other groups beyond Wikimedia. They are force multipliers who close gender gaps, bring in 19% of new English Wikipedia editors, and lead global campaigns proving their strategic and cultural value.
14 Could Hubs replace or support current structures? Asks: "Could Hubs take over tasks currently handled by other groups... such as solving conflicts?" Hubs are mutual aid networks, not bureaucracy. Recommends empowering them to provide peer support, training, and regional coordination-reducing burden on AffCom and WMF.
15 How should Hubs relate to the Foundation and Affiliates? Questions: "How do Hubs fit in with the roles of the Foundation and Affiliates?" and "Could Hubs become key go-betweens?" Hubs are bottom-up solidarity networks, not formal entities. They should co-fund, co-plan, and co-report with WMF and Affiliates-especially in regional advocacy and content campaigns.
16 Should Hubs be formally recognized? Asks: "Is a Hub a formal entity recognized by AffCom? If not, who do Hubs report to?" No clear recommendation-poses it as an open question. Does not demand formal recognition but calls for structural support: fund Hubs through dedicated regional pools, empower them to distribute resources, and include them in governance discussions.
17 How do we decide if a Hub is needed? Questions: "How do we decide if a Hub is a good addition... or if things are working fine without one?" No criteria provided. Uses existing success (CEE Hub, ESEAP Hub) as proof of concept. Suggests need is clear when affiliates face coordination gaps, duplication, or isolation-and when regional content or policy goals require unity.
18 Can Hubs interconnect effectively? Notes: "The impact of hubs will need to be developed, as well as methods of ensuring that hubs are interconnected." Recommends co-creation of shared dashboards, cross-Hub summits, and joint funding mechanisms to ensure connectivity. Sees Hubs as nodes in a collaborative network, not silos.
19 Are current funding mechanisms sufficient? Points out: "Current funding mechanisms are primarily geographically based," which limits support for global thematic work. Proposes dedicated thematic funding pools for gender equity, climate, education, and tech innovation-accessible to Hubs, Movement Partners, and coalitions.
20 Should funding be based on geography only? Implies no: "How to address funding for global thematic areas... given that current funding mechanisms are primarily geographically based?" Argues funding should follow purpose, not just place. Geographic funding risks neglecting global priorities. Recommends thematic grants to scale impact beyond borders.
21 Do Affiliate rules focus enough on supporting projects and volunteers? Asks: "Are we expecting enough from groups in terms of helping contributions and content grow?" Questions whether some groups are underperforming or misaligned. Shifts focus from compliance to impact and alignment. Recommends using the 3Cs framework (Context, Community, Content) to guide expectations-not just activity, but measurable outcomes.
22 Are the differences between Chapters and User Groups still clear? Questions: "Are the differences between Chapters and User Groups no longer clear enough that we need to take a fresh look at their definitions and rules?" Does not reclassify, but refocuses on function over form. Whether Chapter, User Group, or Movement Partner, what matters is how they deliver Context, Community, and Content-not their legal structure.
23 Should we redefine Affiliate types? Asks: "Are the differences between Chapters and User Groups no longer clear enough that we need to take a fresh look at their definitions and rules?" No direct recommendation-poses it as an open strategic question. Does not call for reclassification. Instead, refocuses on function over form. Whether Chapter, User Group, or Movement Partner, what matters is how they deliver Context, Community, and Content-not their legal status.
24 Are current recognition rules suitable? Questions: "Are the rules for becoming an Affiliate suitable? Do they focus enough on supporting our projects and volunteers?" Suggests a need for review. Recommends refreshing AffCom's mandate to focus on ecosystem health and recognition, not compliance. Proposes co-creating a shared theory of change so recognition reflects impact, not just administrative adherence.
25 Are we expecting enough from Affiliates? Asks: "Are we expecting enough from groups in terms of helping contributions and content grow?" Raises concern about alignment with movement goals. Shifts from "expectation" to shared purpose. Uses the 3Cs not as a performance checklist, but as a mirror of impact-affirming what affiliates already do and inviting deeper alignment with 2030 goals.
26 Are there underperforming Affiliates? Asks: "Are there groups today not performing well enough, or that have moved away from these main goals?" Suggests possible derecognition. Avoids labeling groups as "underperforming." Instead, calls for support and renewal, not performance review. Emphasizes that all affiliates contribute and should be empowered, not policed.
27 How should we handle global thematic work? Notes: "How to address funding for global thematic areas... given that current funding mechanisms are primarily geographically based?" Highlights a structural gap. Proposes dedicated thematic funding pools for gender equity, climate, education, and human rights. Allows Hubs, Movement Partners, and coalitions to apply-ensuring support follows mission, not just geography.
28 Can we fund beyond geography? Implied in the funding section: current mechanisms are "primarily geographically based," limiting support for thematic or global initiatives. Strongly advocates for purpose-based funding. Recommends breaking free from geography-only grants to empower global collaboration and equitable resource distribution.
29 What role do Affiliates play in technical innovation? States: "Qualified Affiliates and Movement Partners have a key role" in innovation. Notes that much innovation has come from affiliates (e.g., Wikidata, dashboards). Celebrates affiliates as co-creators of technology-not just users. Highlights Wikidata (WMDE), Quick Statements (Wikimedia Brasil), and Programs & Events Dashboard (Wiki Education) as proof of affiliate-led innovation.
30 How can we support affiliate-led tech development? Asks: "What clear rules and agreements do we need to make sure technical teamwork... is well-aligned and sustainable?" No concrete answer-identifies a need. Proposes a Tech Incubator fund and clear guardrails for collaboration. Recommends including affiliate tech leaders in the Product & Tech Advisory Council to ensure sustainability and integration.
31 How do we ensure Hubs are interconnected? Notes: "The impact of hubs will need to be developed, as well as methods of ensuring that hubs are interconnected." Recommends cross-Hub summits, shared dashboards, and joint funding mechanisms to ensure connectivity. Sees Hubs as nodes in a collaborative network, not isolated silos.
32 Should Hubs be formal entities? Asks: "Is a Hub a formal entity recognized by AffCom? If not, who do Hubs report to?" No recommendation-poses it as an open question. Does not demand formal status. Instead, calls for structural support: fund Hubs through dedicated pools, empower them to distribute resources, and include them in governance discussions-even without formal recognition.
33 Can Hubs replace AffCom functions? Asks: "Could Hubs take over tasks currently handled by other groups... such as solving conflicts, which the Affiliations Committee currently handles (but not perfectly)?" Recommends relieving AffCom of conflict resolution and transferring such functions to Hubs or regional support structures. Supports Hubs as go-betweens for Affiliates and WMF teams in advocacy, safety, and communications.
34 Can Hubs be key go-betweens for Affiliates and the Foundation? Asks: "Could Hubs become key go-betweens for Affiliates and the Foundation-for example, working closely with the Foundation's Global Advocacy, Trust & Safety, Human Rights, Community Resources, Regional Partnerships, or Movement Communications teams?" No definitive answer-poses as an open question. Strongly affirms this role. Recommends Hubs act as regional connectors, co-planning with WMF teams on advocacy, safety, and communications. Cites CEE Hub and ESEAP Hub as models of effective regional coordination.
35 Should Hubs handle conflict resolution? Asks: "Could Hubs take on the role of solving conflicts, which the Affiliations Committee currently handles (but not perfectly)?" Implies it as a possibility. Recommends shifting conflict resolution and peer support to Hubs. Proposes that Hubs run capacity-building workshops and peer mediation circles, reducing burden on AffCom and enabling faster, culturally attuned responses.
36 Are the current rules for Affiliate recognition suitable? Questions: "Are the rules for becoming an Affiliate suitable? Do they focus enough on supporting our projects and volunteers?" Suggests a need for review. Recommends refreshing AffCom's mandate to focus on ecosystem health and recognition, not compliance. Proposes co-creating a shared theory of change so recognition reflects impact, not just administrative adherence.
37 Are we expecting enough from Affiliates in growing content? Asks: "Are we expecting enough from groups in terms of helping contributions and content grow?" Raises concern about alignment with movement goals. Shifts from "expectation" to shared purpose. Uses the 3Cs to show how affiliates already grow content (e.g., CEE Spring, Art + Feminism). Recommends funding and recognition based on measurable impact, not just activity.
38 Are there Affiliates not performing well? Asks: "Are there groups today not performing well enough, or that have moved away from these main goals?" Suggests possible derecognition. Avoids judgmental language. Focuses on support and renewal, not performance review. Emphasizes that all affiliates contribute and should be empowered, not policed. Recommends Bridge Teams and Guardians to strengthen under-resourced groups.
39 Should we redefine Chapter and User Group distinctions? Asks: "Are the differences between Chapters and User Groups no longer clear enough that we need to take a fresh look at their definitions and rules?" No recommendation-poses as a strategic question. Does not call for reclassification. Instead, refocuses on function over form. Whether Chapter, User Group, or Movement Partner, what matters is how they deliver Context, Community, and Content-not their legal status.
40 How should we support global thematic work? Notes: "How to address funding for global thematic areas... given that current funding mechanisms are primarily geographically based?" Highlights a structural gap. Proposes dedicated thematic funding pools for gender equity, climate, education, and human rights. Allows Hubs, Movement Partners, and coalitions to apply-ensuring support follows mission, not just geography.
41 Can we fund beyond geographic boundaries? Implied in the funding section: current mechanisms are "primarily geographically based," limiting support for thematic or global initiatives. Strongly advocates for purpose-based funding. Recommends breaking free from geography-only grants to empower global collaboration and equitable resource distribution.
42 What role do Affiliates play in tech innovation? States: "Qualified Affiliates and Movement Partners have a key role" in innovation. Notes that much innovation (e.g., Wikidata, dashboards) has come from affiliates. Celebrates affiliates as co-creators of technology. Highlights Wikidata (WMDE), Quick Statements (Wikimedia Brasil), and Programs & Events Dashboard (Wiki Education) as proof of affiliate-led innovation. Calls for formal support.
43 How can we ensure sustainable tech collaboration? Asks: "What clear rules and agreements do we need to make sure technical teamwork... is well-aligned and sustainable?" No concrete answer-identifies a need. Proposes a Tech Incubator fund and clear guardrails for collaboration. Recommends including affiliate tech leaders in the Product & Tech Advisory Council to ensure sustainability and integration with core platform.
44 How do we ensure Hubs are interconnected? Notes: "The impact of hubs will need to be developed, as well as methods of ensuring that hubs are interconnected." Recommends cross-Hub summits, shared dashboards, joint funding mechanisms, and co-branded campaigns to ensure connectivity. Sees Hubs as nodes in a collaborative network, not isolated silos.
45 Can Hubs become key go-betweens for Affiliates and the Foundation? Asks: "Could Hubs become key go-betweens for Affiliates and the Foundation-for example, working closely with the Foundation's Global Advocacy, Trust & Safety, Human Rights, Community Resources, Regional Partnerships, or Movement Communications teams?" No definitive answer-poses as an open question. Strongly affirms this role. Recommends Hubs act as regional connectors, co-planning with WMF teams on advocacy, safety, and communications. Cites CEE Hub and ESEAP Hub as models of effective regional coordination.
46 Should Hubs handle conflict resolution? Asks: "Could Hubs take on the role of solving conflicts, which the Affiliations Committee currently handles (but not perfectly)?" Recommends shifting conflict resolution and peer support to Hubs. Proposes that Hubs run capacity-building workshops and peer mediation circles, reducing burden on AffCom and enabling faster, culturally attuned responses.
47 Are the current rules for Affiliate recognition suitable? Questions: "Are the rules for becoming an Affiliate suitable? Do they focus enough on supporting our projects and volunteers?" Suggests a need for review. Recommends refreshing AffCom's mandate to focus on ecosystem health and recognition, not compliance. Proposes co-creating a shared theory of change so recognition reflects impact, not just administrative adherence.
48 Are we expecting enough from Affiliates in growing content? Asks: "Are we expecting enough from groups in terms of helping contributions and content grow?" Raises concern about alignment with movement goals. Shifts from "expectation" to shared purpose. Uses the 3Cs to show how affiliates already grow content (e.g., CEE Spring, Art + Feminism). Recommends funding and recognition based on measurable impact, not just activity.
49 Are there Affiliates not performing well? Asks: "Are there groups today not performing well enough, or that have moved away from these main goals?" Suggests possible derecognition. Avoids judgmental language. Focuses on support and renewal, not performance review. Emphasizes that all affiliates contribute and should be empowered, not policed. Recommends Bridge Teams and Guardians to strengthen under-resourced groups.
50 Should we redefine Chapter and User Group distinctions? Asks: "Are the differences between Chapters and User Groups no longer clear enough that we need to take a fresh look at their definitions and rules?" No recommendation-poses as a strategic question. Does not call for reclassification. Instead, refocuses on function over form. Whether Chapter, User Group, or Movement Partner, what matters is how they deliver Context, Community, and Content-not their legal status.
51 How should we support global thematic work? Notes: "How to address funding for global thematic areas... given that current funding mechanisms are primarily geographically based?" Highlights a structural gap. Proposes dedicated thematic funding pools for gender equity, climate, education, and human rights. Allows Hubs, Movement Partners, and coalitions to apply-ensuring support follows mission, not just geography.
52 Can we fund beyond geographic boundaries? Implied in the funding section: current mechanisms are "primarily geographically based," limiting support for thematic or global initiatives. Strongly advocates for purpose-based funding. Recommends breaking free from geography-only grants to empower global collaboration and equitable resource distribution.
53 What role do Affiliates play in tech innovation? States: "Qualified Affiliates and Movement Partners have a key role" in innovation. Notes that much innovation (e.g., Wikidata, dashboards) has come from affiliates. Celebrates affiliates as co-creators of technology. Highlights Wikidata (WMDE), Quick Statements (Wikimedia Brasil), and Programs & Events Dashboard (Wiki Education) as proof of affiliate-led innovation. Calls for formal support.
54 How can we ensure sustainable tech collaboration? Asks: "What clear rules and agreements do we need to make sure technical teamwork... is well-aligned and sustainable?" Proposes a Tech Incubator fund and clear guardrails for collaboration. Recommends including affiliate tech leaders in the Product & Tech Advisory Council to ensure sustainability and integration with core platform.
55 Can we co-create a shared theory of change? Asks: "Could we imagine co-creating a shared theory of change and success metrics?" Identifies a need for collaborative strategy development. Recommends launching a global co-creation process with affiliates, Hubs, Movement Partners, and WMF to develop a living theory of change.
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Visible,_Vibrant,_Valuable:_Affiliates_at_the_Heart_of_a_Thriving_Movement&oldid=29195323"