Wikimedia CEE Hub/Community Capacity Building Report 2025

Assessment of the CEE Hub pilot approach to employing staff within User Groups
December, 2025

1. Introduction

Background of the CEE Hub pilot initiative

The Wikimedia CEE Hub was established to strengthen collaboration, learning, and practical support among Wikimedia affiliates and communities in Central and Eastern Europe. Among other things, the Hub plays an important “back-office” role for communities in the region, helping them navigate administrative requirements, providing programmatic guidance and connecting groups to wider movement resources. In 2024, the Hub launched a pilot initiative to test a new support mechanism: employing part-time staff directly within three User Groups (UGs): Wikimedians of Romania and Moldova User Group, Wikimedia Community User Group Greece, and Wikimedia Community User Group Cyprus.

The total pilot budget of € 27,975 was shared equally across the groups, with half allocated to two part-time roles for Romania/Moldova UG and the other half supporting two part-time positions jointly for Greece and Cyprus. The pilot was initially envisaged for one or two groups, however, following a review of five potential candidates, the CEE Hub Steering Committee decided to expand participation to three UGs, giving priority to communities that demonstrated consistent communication, reliable follow-up and a clear record of ongoing activity. The intention was to give each UG a modest but steady layer of operational capacity, something that many smaller UGs have repeatedly identified as missing.

During implementation, the model evolved from the initial idea of one staff member per group to two part-time roles (two supporting the Wikimedians of Romania and Moldova User Group, and two shared between the Wikimedia Community User Group Greece and Wikimedia Community User Group Cyprus), reflecting the workload and the diversity of tasks. Two contracts were completed as planned, while staffing arrangements for the remaining roles were adjusted during implementation, including one contract extension and one early conclusion. This pilot represented the first attempt by the CEE Hub to test whether dedicated, part-time staffing could make a tangible difference to the stability, coordination and visibility of smaller Wikimedia UGs.

Rationale for employing staff within User Groups

The design of the pilot was directly informed by findings from the CEE Hub’s 2023 research on barriers faced by smaller affiliates and communities in the region. That study highlighted several recurring issues:

heavy reliance on a small core of volunteers,
administrative overload,
gaps in communication and documentation,
inconsistent community engagement and partner follow-up,
challenges in attracting new contributors,
limited capacity for planning, fundraising and conflict management.

One of the clearest messages from the 2023 research was that smaller and mid-sized communities often struggle to sustain essential organisational functions when everything depends on a handful of volunteers. The study outlined different developmental stages of UGs and recommended that groups with an established core of a few active members would particularly benefit from having at least one paid part-time role to support functions such as: administrative coordination, reporting, communication, fundraising, partner engagement. Building on these findings, the CEE Hub together with its Steering Committee decided to make a strategic investment in this approach and pilot a limited amount of paid capacity within selected UGs, with the aim of strengthening continuity, reducing overload on volunteers and improving basic organisational processes. The pilot was, therefore, designed as a practical test: could a small amount of paid staff time strengthen continuity, improve the organisation of activities and reduce the administrative burden that volunteers often struggle to manage?

Overview of the participating User Groups

Wikimedians of Romania and Moldova User Group

The Romania and Moldova UG brings together contributors who work on Romanian language content, as well as topics related to local history, culture and education. The group regularly collaborates with universities, libraries, cultural institutions and organises edit-a-thons, thematic projects and community events. In 2025 the UG sustained a mix of outreach, education, community engagement, heritage and culture-oriented campaigns, reinforcing its role as a hub for free knowledge and active Romanian-language Wikimedia collaboration. Under the pilot, the group opted to hire two part-time specialists, one focusing on Education and another on Communication, areas that they identified as essential for strengthening outreach, partnerships and visibility.

Wikimedia Community User Group Greece

The Greek UG is an established community working across projects such as Wikipedia, Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons. Its activities range from organising trainings and workshops to collaborating with GLAM partners and academic institutions. The group maintained a diverse and active annual programme in 2025, combining education, outreach, GLAM collaborations, contests and community-building initiatives that strengthened both its national presence and its contribution to the wider Wikimedia movement. For the pilot, Greece jointly shared the staffing arrangement with Cyprus, hiring one person for Administrative and Community Support tasks and another for Grants and Strategy Development. The intention behind this shared model was to help both communities strengthen their strategic planning, coordination and fundraising-related work.

Wikimedia Community User Group Cyprus

Cyprus is a smaller and newer UG that promotes Wikimedia projects in Greek and English. Activities include Wiki Loves Monuments, local editing events and basic outreach to cultural and educational partners. While the 2025 activity report is still pending, the Cyprus UG is expanding its presence through gender-focused edit-a-thons, heritage documentation initiatives and community outreach, gradually building the foundations for a more active and visible Wikimedia community on the island. Through the shared staffing model with Greece, the Cyprus group hoped to gain more continuity, improve communication channels and ensure better follow-up on activities and collaborations.

Purpose and objectives of the assessment

The purpose of this assessment was to understand how effectively this small-scale staffing model worked in practice, what lessons were learned and whether the approach could be sustained or replicated. The assessment focused on four core questions:

How did the employed staff contribute to concrete actions, aligned with their job descriptions?
To what extent did the pilot help strengthen the capacities and activities of the UGs?
What strengths and challenges emerged from this employment model, including part-time arrangements and shared roles?
What are the lessons and reflections for improving the model in the future?

The analysis provides a balanced reflection on both the opportunities and limitations of the pilot, with the aim of supporting User Groups to better structure and prioritise future opportunities, while informing Hub-level decisions on future user-group support models.

2. Methodology

The assessment used a qualitative, mixed-methods approach designed to capture the perspectives of the three participating UGs, the CEE Hub and key documentation related to the pilot’s implementation. The methodology combined desk research, semi-structured interviews, and thematic analysis to examine the relevance, effectiveness and sustainability of the employment model.

A review of all available documentation was conducted at the start of the assignment. This included:

descriptions of the pilot model and the planned roles
hiring announcements and task lists
available records of outputs and activities
notes from exit interviews carried out during the pilot
annual and 2024–2025 activity reports on Meta

This desk review helped reconstruct how the pilot was designed, implemented and adapted, and served as a basis for tailoring the interview questions. Interviews were held with representatives from all three UGs, as well as with the Regional CEE Hub Coordinator who initiated and oversaw the pilot.

Interviews conducted included:

Greece: two representatives from the core group (in English
Cyprus: one representative from the core group (in English)
Romania/Moldova: two representatives from the core group (in Romanian)
CEE Hub: the regional coordinator responsible for the pilot (in English)

A semi-structured format was used for the interviews. This ensured that all interviews addressed the same key themes, role clarity, workload, supervision, concrete outputs and overall perceived value, while still allowing space to explore issues that were specific to each group’s context and experience. Notes from all interviews were written up immediately after each conversation. These, together with the desk research materials, were reviewed several times to identify common themes, differences between UGs and practical reflections on the employment model.

The analysis was guided by the four objectives of the assessment:

the concrete actions and outputs delivered by the staff
whether and how the pilot strengthened group capacities
strengths and challenges of the employment model
and lessons learned for future support

Where possible, findings were compared across different sources (documents, interviews, UG reports) to ensure that they were well-grounded. This assessment has several natural limitations. The pilot was small and relatively short, so the findings reflect early experiences rather than longer-term results. Interviews involved a limited number of core members and documentation varied across UGs. In one case, a slight language barrier affected the depth of information that could be explored during the interview, though the overall insights remain valid. Despite these constraints, the combination of interviews and available documents provides a sufficiently reliable basis for the analysis and conclusions. In line with ethical standards, the identities of the individuals referenced are preserved and gender-neutral pronouns (they/their) are used throughout.

3. Findings

Wikimedians of Romania and Moldova User Group

Process set up

The Romania and Moldova UG approached the pilot with a clear sense of where additional capacity was needed. The core group consists of six members, four of whom are consistently active and the group operates through a horizontal, volunteer-driven structure without formalised roles or hierarchy. Members contribute based on interest, availability and initiative. Based on their ongoing work, internal discussions and past experience with annual grants, they proposed two areas where part-time support could make the biggest difference: education and communication. These choices aligned with the group’s development trajectory, expanding collaborations with libraries, universities and cultural institutions and with their recognised gap in maintaining a consistent communication presence.

To operationalise this, the UG drafted two role descriptions. Although they had limited experience with formal hiring, they adapted the process to fit their context. The roles, a part-time Education Specialist and a part-time Communication Specialist, were advertised openly in Romanian through LinkedIn, Facebook and Instagram. The aim was to reach new people beyond the existing community and bring in fresh perspectives, including stronger communication skills and professional experience from outside the Wikimedia movement.

The recruitment process drew a reasonable number of applicants, especially for the communication role. For the education position, the pool was smaller and candidates varied more in suitability. The interview process involved two to three interviews per candidate and included participation from both the UG’s core members and the Regional CEE Hub Coordinator. While the group and the CEE Hub at times had slightly different expectations, they ultimately made the selections jointly. Selection emphasised professional background, communication skills and potential alignment with Wikimedia values, even if the candidates had limited prior exposure to Wikimedia projects.

As a result, the UG hired two part-time staff members:

An education specialist, responsible for developing partnerships with universities, integrating Wikipedia into academic courses, preparing materials for teachers and students and supporting student assignments on Wikipedia.
A communication specialist, responsible for implementing the group’s communication tasks, managing social media channels, producing content, improving visibility and supporting outreach and event promotion.

Once the two staff members were contracted, the group organised an in-person induction meeting in Bucharest, set up shared folders, regular weekly online calls and monthly check-ins with the CEE Hub. An initial induction period of one month was planned, after which each staff member was expected to develop their own work plan, followed by joint review and refinement. One core group member initially handled most of the coordination of the hired specialists. As the pilot progressed, responsibilities shifted: another core member took over supervising the Education Specialist, while the Communication Specialist continued to be supervised by the original coordinator.

Contribution of the pilot staff roles to activities and outputs

Interviewees reported that the Education specialist contributed to expanding the UG’s academic outreach by initiating cooperation with universities, including the Faculty of Philosophy and the Faculty of Letters at the University of Bucharest. The specialist delivered introductory sessions for professors and students, provided training on Wikipedia editing and supported the design of student assignments linked to Wikipedia. At least one faculty integrated Wikipedia-based coursework, resulting in students contributing directly to articles as part of their academic work. Cooperation was established with a total of three faculties, including the preparation of written cooperation agreements. Approximately twelve students ultimately edited or wrote articles during the pilot period. From a contractual and reporting perspective, these outputs are somewhat aligned with the agreed scope of work and deliverables for the role. At the same time, interviewees noted that expectations regarding the depth and sustainability of university engagement varied. While several institutions were brought into cooperation, there were no predefined targets for student numbers or long-term continuation and views differed on whether the priority should be deeper engagement with a smaller number of universities or broader outreach across multiple institutions. As a result, although the formal objectives were somewhat met, the contribution was perceived as uneven in terms of longer-term educational impact.

The Communication specialist produced a wide range of outputs and had a clear and visible impact on the UG’s communication. According to their 2024 report, outputs included:

Expanded activity across Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn
Regular thematic posts, visual content, and campaign promotion
Updates to Meta pages
A new Romanian-language newsletter
Promotion of campaigns such as Wiki Loves Monuments Moldova, Open Access Week, Wikimania 2024, Wikimărțișor, and edit-a-thons
Significant audience growth (for example the WMROMD Facebook page increasing from 291 to 569 followers between July 2024 and January 2025; Romanian Wikipedia Facebook growing from 2,948 to 4,689 followers)

Interviewees confirmed these results and described the specialist as proactive, well-integrated into the group’s working rhythm and able to maintain consistent communication without interruptions. The Communication Specialist also played a key role in putting into practice the UG’s draft communication strategy, which had been developed internally to address long-standing gaps in visibility, outreach and consistency. The Strategy outlines priorities such as diversifying communication channels, ensuring regular updates, strengthening the group’s image and improving engagement with volunteers. The specialist translated these priorities into concrete actions, including scheduling posts across platforms, launching the Romanian-language newsletter, updating Meta pages, preparing campaign-specific content and ensuring more timely promotion of events. Interviewees reported that this resulted in a more coherent online presence, higher engagement and a noticeable increase in followers and interaction. The experience also helped the group clarify what sustained communication capacity requires and what kind of skills they may need in future staff or volunteers.

Contribution to strengthening UG capacities

In terms of organisational and operational capacities, interviewees highlighted several improvements:

Communication capacity strengthened, addressing a long-standing weakness. The specialist ensured regular updates, diversified channels and more structured outreach.
Increased visibility, reflected in higher followership, stronger engagement and recognition by regional Wikimedia peers.
Some improvements in educational capacity, with clearer entry points for university partnerships and completed Wikipedia student assignments.

Related to perceptions of internal change, interviewees emphasised that:

The Communication Specialist brought continuity and structure to communication activities, increasing reliability and responsiveness.
It can be considered that the Education Specialist achieved the main objectives related to university outreach, even if internal coordination challenges limited the depth of results.
The pilot revealed the need for clearer internal systems, expectations and supervision practices when working with paid staff, an important learning point for the group as it moves toward more structured operations.

The UG’s publicly documented activity in 2024 builds on, and goes beyond, the engagement patterns observed in 2023. In 2023, the Group implemented seven core campaigns alongside a range of presentations, workshops and working meetings with libraries, universities and community partners, reflecting a focus on outreach, experimentation and relationship-building; however, the available documentation does not include consolidated quantitative data on participants or content outputs. In contrast, 2024 shows a shift toward more structured programming and reporting. The Group expanded its campaign portfolio and introduced systematic tracking of results, reporting 17 campaign events with 276 participants, leading to 2,215 Wikipedia contributions, 625 improved pages and 402 new pages. While this increase cannot be attributed solely to changes in staffing or internal arrangements, the improved visibility of outputs and clearer documentation in 2024 are consistent with interview feedback pointing to stronger communication, outreach and coordination during the pilot period. Taken together, the comparison suggests a transition from foundational activity and engagement in 2023 toward more organized, measurable and publicly visible work in 2024.

Strengths and challenges of the employment model

From the perspective of the Romania and Moldova User Group, the pilot demonstrated both the relevance and the complexity of integrating paid staff into a small, horizontally organised volunteer community. Overall, the experience highlighted how well-aligned roles can add value, while also exposing the additional demands that paid positions place on volunteer-led structures.

On the positive side, the Communication specialist role closely matched an identified organisational need. Communication had long been recognised as an area requiring reinforcement, and interviewees consistently described the specialist as a good fit with the group’s working style: proactive, independent and capable of delivering consistent outputs. The role strengthened communication across platforms, introduced new formats such as the Romanian-language newsletter, and provided continuity of messaging and visibility that the group had previously struggled to sustain. While one interviewee noted that adapting to a volunteer-driven environment initially required adjustment, particularly around expectations, availability and communication habits, these issues were addressed through discussion and mutual understanding. In their exit interviews, both staff members reported feeling supported, having access to the tools and resources needed to perform their roles, and valuing the learning and exposure the pilot provided.

At the same time, interviewees identified a number of challenges related to the Education specialist role, team coordination and the overall employment set-up. Although the specialist successfully established two university partnerships and supported student assignments, sustaining collaboration beyond initial activities proved difficult. Interviewees repeatedly pointed to challenges related to communication style, feedback loops and clarity of expectations. The staff member in this role reported uncertainty around supervision, noting that the involvement of multiple actors, including the User Group, the fiscal sponsor, the CEE Hub and university partners, resulted in overlapping lines of authority in practice. While the employment contract itself was clear, expectations were sometimes perceived as exceeding what was realistic for a 0.4 FTE role, and periods without feedback or guidance contributed to feelings of isolation and underappreciation.

Core group members, meanwhile, described the specialist’s communication approach as at times rigid or inefficient and noted difficulties in adapting to Wikimedia practices, organising work beyond a small number of students and responding to guidance. Despite additional support efforts, these issues led to unresolved tensions, and the User Group ultimately concluded that the Education specialist role required a different profile and chose not to extend the contract. The two-part-time staffing model had mixed effects. On the one hand, it allowed the User Group to address two strategic gaps simultaneously and to benefit from the strong performance of the Communication specialist. On the other hand, managing two paid roles placed significant strain on a small core team with limited management experience and no dedicated, budgeted time for supervision. One interviewee noted that staff salaries, though benchmarked, exceeded what some core members earned for project work. Another interviewee described feeling pressure to deliver rapid results. Time required for recruitment, onboarding, weekly meetings and managing interpersonal dynamics was greater than anticipated and, according to one interviewee, resulted in “the biggest conflict we have had in the group.” Pre-existing communication challenges within the core team became more visible and were amplified under the pressure of managing a role that proved not to be the right fit.

The staff exit interviews provided additional insight into how the employment model functioned in practice. Both staff members highlighted the importance of understanding the wider Wikimedia ecosystem, including the User Group, the Hub, the broader community and the Wikimedia Foundation, and found movement-level events such as Wikimania helpful in orienting their work. Experiences of role clarity and supervision differed markedly. One staff member reported a clear understanding of responsibilities, reporting lines and deadlines from the outset. The other experienced the arrangement as complex due to the involvement of multiple actors, which led to ambiguous day-to-day reporting lines and mixed signals about expectations, including whether the role might evolve or require becoming an active Wikipedian. Both initially struggled to identify a single supervisor, which created confusion and slowed decision-making. Despite these challenges, both staff members stated that they had adequate tools and resources to perform their roles and appreciated the team-building support, materials and community connections provided. Experiences of communication varied: one described constructive feedback, trust and autonomy, while the other reported inconsistent or absent feedback and limited alignment on priorities. Both consistently identified the CEE Hub as a stable and supportive presence throughout the assignment.

Overall, the pilot demonstrated that employing staff can bring substantial benefits to a small User Group, particularly in areas requiring continuity, visibility and structured outreach, when roles are well aligned with organisational needs and supported by clear expectations and adequate supervision. At the same time, the challenges encountered around role clarity, management capacity, interpersonal dynamics and adaptation to Wikimedia norms illustrate the added complexity that paid roles introduce into volunteer-led communities. The pilot generated valuable learning about the types of roles that fit best, the level of oversight required and the conditions needed for future employment arrangements to be sustainable and effective.

Lessons learnt and reflections

Across interviews with core group members and the CEE Hub Coordinator, several shared reflections emerged on what the group learned through this pilot and what could be strengthened in future employment arrangements. One key insight was the importance of preparing the internal team before hiring staff. Interviewees noted that entering the pilot without a dedicated inception phase or strategic alignment created vulnerabilities, particularly for a small, volunteer-led group without formal structures. A period focused on clarifying roles, working styles, expectations and communication norms could have helped prevent later misunderstandings. Before hiring staff again, the group would benefit from facilitated sessions on teamwork, decision-making, strategy and performance expectations, as well as reflection on how different personalities and approaches interact within the group.

Another major lesson related to management and supervision capacity. One member noted that the additional supervision requirements for two part-time staff reduced the group’s own capacity for other work and brought underlying tensions within the core team to the surface. Misalignment around meeting frequency, communication style and expectations, combined with a challenging staff relationship, eventually resulted in open conflict. Several interviewees reflected that these outcomes were symptoms of latent internal issues that surfaced once the group was placed under the additional pressure of managing an employment model without adequate preparation.

Reflections on what worked well focused on the communication role, which was seen as well-aligned with group needs and delivered clear added value through increased visibility, diversified communication channels and more consistent promotion of activities. The Educational role also brought benefits, especially in establishing initial university collaborations, but the challenges experienced with one staff member underscored the importance of selecting candidates who are able to adapt to Wikimedia’s culture, understand volunteer dynamics and communicate effectively within a small, decentralised team. Part of the difficulty arose from two different paradigms colliding: the expectations and rhythms of paid staff (even if part-time), and the reality of a volunteer-led group where core members may not see themselves as supervisors in a formal sense. This mismatch contributed to misunderstandings around responsibility, availability and performance, underscoring the need for clearer structures and support if paid roles are introduced again in the future.

In terms of sustainability, the group sees continued relevance for both communication and educational roles, particularly in maintaining visibility and strengthening university partnerships. However, internal supervisory and organisational capacity will need reinforcement for these roles to function well in the long term. The need to continue evolving organisationally was also emphasised, potentially through developing a board or clearer governance roles, to better support future staff and reduce reliance on informal structures. Finally, interviewees expressed appreciation for the support received from the CEE Hub, particularly in navigating difficult conversations, bridging funding gaps and offering guidance throughout the pilot. It was also noted that future involvement might benefit from clearer coordination between the CEE Hub and the UG to avoid mixed signals and ensure alignment.

Interviews suggest that the Romania and Moldova UG benefited from parts of the pilot but was not fully prepared for the organisational, managerial and interpersonal demands that come with employing staff. The experience revealed significant added value, particularly in communication and visibility but also exposed areas where internal structures, coordination practices and supervisory capacity were not yet sufficiently developed to support two part-time roles.

Recommendations for Wikimedians of Romania and Moldova User Group

The following recommendations focus on preparing the group more effectively before taking on future employment opportunities, so that any similar initiative can be introduced into a more stable organisational environment and lead to better outcomes for both staff and volunteers.

Undertake a structured readiness assessment before hiring staff, including clarity of internal roles, communication norms, conflict resolution practices and expectations around decision-making.
Begin with a dedicated inception phase that includes facilitated sessions on group dynamics, teamwork, working styles and coordination.
Several interviewees reflected that unresolved internal tensions existed before the pilot and became amplified once staff were added, so a guided process could help surface and address these issues early.
Strengthen basic governance and organisational structure before employing staff. For a small, volunteer-led group, clarifying responsibilities, defining who supervises whom and establishing simple internal procedures (feedback routines, priority-setting, reporting) may form an essential foundation.
Provide management and supervision training to core members before introducing paid roles. In certain cases, volunteers may not naturally perceive themselves as supervisors and may lack the tools, time or confidence to support staff. Targeted training on supervision basics, feedback, conflict management and task prioritisation could support the group in addressing several of the challenges observed, but would need to be complemented by practical guidance and ongoing support.
Introduce a lightweight strategic planning or visioning exercise before recruitment to ensure that the group has a shared understanding of goals, priorities and staffing needs.
Ensure a clear, singular supervision arrangement is established before hiring. One designated supervisor with time and skills rather than diffuse or overlapping directions helps staff orient themselves and reduces confusion about authority.
Confirm an orientation plan for new staff, including an introduction to Wikimedia culture, the volunteer environment, reporting lines, and how decisions are made.
Allow more time for recruitment, especially when a group has limited prior experience hiring. This will help ensure a stronger match between the role, the group and the candidate.
Budget time and resources for management, recognising that volunteer supervisors must have the capacity, both emotional and administrative to support staff. Without this, paid roles risk placing pressure on the group rather than relieving it.
Start small before expanding the model. For groups with limited management experience, beginning with one part-time role (instead of two simultaneously) can reduce strain and allow the team to adjust gradually.
Explore alternative forms of support before employment, such as team-building resources, strategic facilitation, mentoring or administrative support, in case a group is not yet organisationally ready.
Reflect honestly on internal dynamics before entering similar pilots, ensuring the group has the psychological safety, communication culture and trust needed to manage staff constructively. Internal readiness can be as important as funding.

Wikimedia Community User Group Greece

Process set up

Wikimedia Community User Group Greece has existed since 2011, initially as an informal collective of volunteers. Members contributed independently to Wikimedia projects and coordination emerged gradually as activities grew. To enable collaboration with external partners and meet formal requirements such as signing contracts, the group established a legal association in 2019. The active core group consists of five volunteers, supported by an elected board. Within the team, responsibilities naturally align with members’ experience. Work happens both independently and jointly, depending on the task, maintaining a balance between collaboration and individual initiative.

As volunteer-led activities expanded, administrative needs increased significantly. Routine tasks such as documentation, planning, reporting and grant preparation became too demanding for volunteers to manage alongside their regular contributions. To address this, the group introduced two part time paid support roles under the pilot, following the acceptance of the CEE Hub pilot proposal. The budget envelope foreseen for the pilot was considered by the core group members sufficient to divide into two part-time positions rather than one full-time role, allowing the UG to cover both administrative–community tasks and grants–strategy tasks within the available funds. Hence the roles were as follows:

Administrative–community support role: This role was established to provide day-to-day operational support to both Wikimedia UGs (Greece and Cyprus). The key responsibilities included organising meetings and events, supporting the implementation and coordination of UG activities, conducting outreach and helping initiate new partnerships in both countries. The role also served as a link between the CEE Hub and the two communities, contributing to the implementation of campaigns and planning future contests. Additional tasks included mapping ongoing activities across both UGs and organising or updating their Meta pages. Work processes were managed primarily through Trello for task tracking and Google Drive for document management.
Grants and strategy support role: The grants and strategy role was designed to strengthen the UGs’ ability to plan, prepare and submit grant applications. The role involved drafting a two-year activity plan for each UG, reviewing Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) grant procedures and jointly determining which grant pathways to pursue. The staff member was responsible for writing annual grant applications and, where relevant, suggesting additional funding opportunities beyond WMF. This work was structured through planning meetings, agreed task lists, and weekly progress updates, enabling the efficient completion of grant applications and related strategic documents for both UGs.

The intended distribution of tasks between the two UGs was approximately 60% for Greece and 40% for Cyprus, though the practical implementation of this split varied depending on the nature of activities at any given time. Both UGs proposed tasks and coordinated their respective parts. Both roles were recruited from within trusted networks. For the administrative role, the candidate had previous volunteer involvement in Wikimedia events and came recommended by academic partners. For the grants role, several candidates were considered and the final selection reflected the need for strong technical and organisational capacity. Supervision varied by role. The administrative position required closer coordination and more frequent meetings, while the grants role operated with a more independent workflow guided by agreed priorities and regular reporting.

Contribution of the pilot staff roles to activities and outputs

Interviewees reported that the person in the administrative–community role contributed to organising the group’s work in a more systematic way. The employee created a structured activity calendar, organised Trello workflows, documented ongoing activities, prepared press releases and blog posts, updated Meta pages (Cyprus fully and Greece partially), and created updated contact and mailing lists. The employee also helped coordinate meetings and contributed to short-term and five-month plans, including mapping existing activities and preparing folder structures in Google Drive. These outputs supported clearer distribution of tasks and improved internal coordination. However, interviewees explained that many tasks required substantial clarification and supervision needs were higher than anticipated. Some expectations around the role, such as differentiating between paid tasks and voluntary participation in regional spaces, were not always clear. While around 90% of the assigned tasks were completed, the Greek UG interviewed members did not observe the improvement in administrative management they had hoped for and considered that the match between candidate profile and role requirements had been only partial.

The grants-strategy role generated a set of tangible and timely outputs. According to interviewees, the staff member drafted and submitted the WMF annual grant applications for both Greece and Cyprus, both of which were approved. The person hired developed the strategic plan for Wikimedia Greece (2024–2027) collaboratively with the group and prepared an Erasmus+ application involving both groups. They also created recurring calendars for event planning and grant cycles. Interviewees described this work as highly professional and appreciated the ability to complete tasks independently, meet deadlines and manage work with limited input. The strategic plan the employee developed consolidated ongoing priorities in partnerships, funding opportunities and advocacy, helping the group articulate a clearer direction. The performance also led to continued involvement with the UG and their appointment to a regional grants evaluation committee.

Both roles contributed to more predictable workflows and clearer task organisation. Volunteers described this as the first time the group worked with systematic calendars instead of relying on memory, which improved planning for events and recurring activities. The administrative role helped prepare materials and maintain updated documentation, while the grants role introduced structured timelines for applications and reporting.

Contribution to strengthening UG capacities

The pilot contributed to more systematic planning and delivery of activities. The administrative–community support role introduced a structured activity calendar, while the grants and strategy role developed schedules for recurring events and application cycles. This shifted the UG from informal, memory-based coordination to documented and predictable processes. Interviewed core group members, reported gaining a better understanding of their annual cycle and being able to extend activities due to more structured workflows. Staff presence also enabled the UG to apply to host the CEE Meeting 2025. Interviewees explained that having staff ‘gave us a platform and mandate to form a team’. By taking over smaller administrative tasks, staff created space for volunteers to focus on creative or content-focused aspects of the work.

A comparison of the UG’s 2023 and 2024 public activity reports shows that in 2024 the group carried out a greater number and wider variety of activities. These ranged from education programmes and edit-a-thons to international events and thematic campaigns, indicating increased capacity for planning and implementation across multiple areas. No changes were reported regarding the number of active volunteers, new editors or admins, or content creation levels. Partnership-related tasks were supported through mapping partner lists and maintaining communication materials, although no new partnerships were reported as directly resulting from the pilot. Interviewees described the overall effect of the pilot as helping the UG work ‘more professionally’, improving planning, task distribution and preparation for activities and events.

Strengths and challenges of the employment model

The pilot demonstrated both the potential and the complexity of adding paid staff to a volunteer-led community that has operated informally for many years. On the positive side, the roles selected addressed long-standing gaps in coordination, documentation and strategic planning. The grants and strategy role, in particular, aligned strongly with the group’s needs. Interviewees described the person in this role as independent, professional and able to deliver high-quality outputs with minimal supervision. In their exit interview, the grants and strategy staff member reported well-defined tasks and deadlines, enabling efficient planning. They experienced constructive communication from both UGs and the CEE Hub and reported positive interactions with volunteers.

The administrative–community support role brought new structure to everyday work by organising Trello boards, creating calendars, setting up document repositories, mapping activities and updating Meta pages. For a group accustomed to managing activities ‘from memory’, these steps marked a significant shift toward more predictable and documented workflows. Interviewees noted that staff presence helped them work ‘more systematically’ and allowed volunteers to dedicate more time to creative programme work rather than routine administration.

However, significant challenges emerged around the administrative–community support role (hired under the Greek UG’s legal entity), highlighting a mismatch between expectations and the UG’s ability to supervise and support a new staff member. The UG noted that, with limited experience in staff management, they struggled to provide the structured guidance, clear task boundaries and consistent feedback the role required. Volunteers reported that explaining tasks often took longer than completing them themselves, adding pressure to their already limited capacity. They described repeated misunderstandings, frequent clarifications and difficulty aligning working styles. They also felt that the staff member needed greater familiarity with Wikimedia terminology and volunteer-led processes to meet expectations.

The staff member reported in their exit interview understanding the overall employment arrangement, including working hours, leave and the broader Wikimedia context. However, they experienced substantial challenges with day-to-day clarity and supervision. While the broader purpose of the role was clear, daily tasks were often insufficiently structured, frequently changing or communicated at the last minute. They were unsure at times what tasks fell to staff versus volunteers and felt that more consistent communication would have enabled stronger performance. Although they understood who their manager was, they noted that while tools were available, practical guidance was limited. They also highlighted inconsistent instructions from different individuals, which contributed to uncertainty about priorities and execution.

Overall, the challenges surrounding the role stemmed from the UG’s limited supervisory experience, the staff member’s need for clearer day-to-day guidance being at an early stage in their professional trajectory, combined with the structural complexity of the arrangement. Although the staff member understood the broader purpose of the role, inconsistent communication and a lack of structured direction impeded effective performance. As misunderstandings accumulated and the working relationship deteriorated, the UG decided to end the contract earlier than planned, citing limited progress and the high level of supervision required.

The pilot demonstrated that introducing paid roles into a small, volunteer-driven UG can bring meaningful benefits, particularly when tasks require specialised expertise, structured planning or sustained attention to deadlines. The grants and strategy role showed this most clearly: the individual in this position delivered consistently high-quality outputs, required minimal supervision and addressed long-standing gaps in strategic planning and funding coordination. Their contribution illustrated the value of professional support in areas where volunteers may lack time, continuity or technical skill.

At the same time, the experience also revealed the limits of introducing staff into an environment that has historically relied on informal coordination, undocumented processes and ad-hoc communication. The administrative–community support role highlighted these tensions most visibly. The UG did not yet have the supervisory systems, role clarity or time required to effectively support a new staff member, particularly someone at an early stage in their career. Overall, the pilot illustrates both the promise and the challenges of employing staff in small, volunteer-led communities. When roles are tightly aligned with organisational needs and require professional expertise, as in the grants and strategy role, the model can strengthen capacity, improve planning and enhance delivery. However, roles dependent on close daily coordination require a level of supervisory structure, clarity and consistency that the UG may not yet have developed, and the complexity of coordinating across two UGs and the Hub added further difficulty. The experience provides valuable learning for refining future staffing approaches: ensuring clearer role design, investing in supervisory capacity and establishing more structured communication routines as essential conditions for staff integration to be effective and sustainable.

Lessons learnt and reflections

A central lesson which emerged was that employing staff can substantially strengthen the UG but only when supervisory structures, communication routines and role expectations are clearly defined. The grants–strategy role demonstrated what works well: clearly scoped outputs, aligned expectations and independent delivery with limited need for oversight. By contrast, the challenges around the administrative–community support role stemmed less from the idea of the role and more from gaps in preparation, management skills and the UG’s existing working style. UG members acknowledged that they need staff support, especially for logistics, financial administration, scheduling, year-round planning and managing parallel activities. These tasks are time-consuming, often overlooked and not the best use of volunteer capacity. They also recognised that part-time roles may not meet their operational needs, given frequent time-sensitive tasks. Future staffing should therefore prioritise administrative and operational reliability, ideally through a full-time position.

At the same time, the UG noted the importance of hiring someone familiar with Wikimedia platforms, policies and workflows. The pilot showed that new staff with no prior Wikimedia experience require much more onboarding and guidance than anticipated, which strained volunteer time. A clearer job description, a better hiring process and stronger consideration of personality fit, communication style and compatibility with the core team were identified as critical improvements. The multi-actor design of the pilot, two UGs, the Hub and staff working across two countries, created overlapping instructions and made it difficult to enforce consistent expectations. The importance of assigning a single supervisor, ensuring weekly structured check-ins, using a probation period and defining both deliverables and communication expectations from the outset were emphasised.

The staff exit interviews reinforced these lessons. Staff reported that while employment conditions were clear, day-to-day clarity and communication varied. One staff member experienced clear guidance; the other struggled with shifting tasks, inconsistent instructions and limited supervision. Both valued the CEE Hub’s responsiveness and supportive role. This experience suggests that introducing paid staff into User Groups is as much an organisational change process as a resourcing decision, requiring deliberate preparation, clear accountability and shared understanding across all actors involved.

Recommendations for the Greece User Group

Strengthen supervisory capacity within a volunteer-led environment

Benefit from short, targeted management and HR training tailored specifically for volunteers who supervise staff (e.g., giving feedback, setting priorities, managing boundaries), or consider introducing a skilled paid supervisory function when volunteer capacity is limited.
Establish regular, light-touch supervisory routines, such as weekly or bi-weekly check-ins, to ensure clarity, guidance and predictable support.
Ensure the designated supervisor has realistic available time, acknowledging that volunteer supervisors balance this role with other commitments.

Improve recruitment processes with attention to volunteer–staff compatibility

Assess not only technical skills but also interpersonal compatibility with the volunteer core team (e.g. communication style, adaptability, self-management).
Emphasise interview questions on:
- experience working with volunteer communities
- comfort managing tasks with limited oversight
- familiarity with Wikimedia platforms (or demonstrated capacity to learn them quickly)
- ability to manage parallel tasks and time-sensitive responsibilities independently.

Develop clearer role descriptions and simple reporting systems

Create detailed job descriptions outlining deliverables, responsibilities and clear boundaries between staff tasks and volunteer tasks.
Use simple reporting templates, monthly progress reviews to help volunteers monitor progress without excessive administrative burden. * Implement task management tools (Asana/Trello) consistently, with clear expectations on how tasks are recorded, updated and reviewed.

Ensure organisational readiness before hiring

Consult labour law and accounting professionals to identify the most suitable employment model and avoid unexpected obligations.
Put in place early-warning mechanisms, such as probation periods, regular metrics, review meetings, to detect issues early.
Establish a checks-and-balances system that assesses not only staff performance but also the quality of supervisory support provided by volunteer managers.
Reflect as a group on internal communication routines, decision-making processes and available time before entering a new staffing arrangement.

The pilot confirmed that introducing staff can significantly strengthen the Greece UG, particularly for strategic planning and professionalised coordination, provided that roles, expectations and supervisory structures are clearly defined. The experience also highlighted that the group needs stronger management systems, more established communication routines and more robust recruitment processes before integrating additional staff. With clearer structures and better preparation, future staffing could offer substantial benefits and reduce the burden currently placed on volunteers.

Wikimedia Community User Group Cyprus

Process set up

The staffing arrangement for Wikimedia Community User Group Cyprus followed the same overall set-up described above for the shared Greece–Cyprus model, with two paid support roles introduced under the CEE Hub pilot and shared across both UGs. The scope of the roles, overall rationale and contractual framework were reflected above in the UG Greece section. At the time of the pilot, the Cyprus UG operated with a small core group of around four active members. According to the interviewee, coordination relied mainly on one core member who took on a continuous organisational and strategic role, while other members engaged as needed in activities and events. The interviewee described the current internal division of roles as clearer than in previous periods, while remaining fully volunteer-led.

The UG expectations of the proposed support model were perceived as very positive. The group was operating entirely on a volunteer basis and had limited experience with funding and longer-term planning, making the pilot an important step forward. The availability of dedicated funding helped clarify what was possible and how resources could be used. Priority areas identified by the Cyprus UG focused on strategy and grants (including Wikimedia and Erasmus+) and hands-on organisational and communication support.

From the Cyprus UG perspective, the recruitment process was described as well organised. As noted above, both the grants-strategy role and the administrative–community support role were recruited through the shared process for Greece and Cyprus, based on agreed criteria, recommendations and perceived suitability at the time. Regarding employment arrangements, the interviewee noted that contractual and legal aspects were largely handled at the Greece UG level, including the use of a fiscal sponsor based in Poland and the hiring of the administrative–community support role under the Greek UG’s legal entity. The Cyprus UG’s involvement focused primarily on defining priorities and working with the shared staff roles. Overall, the interviewee characterised the process set-up for Cyprus as clear and positive, particularly in relation to collaboration with the CEE Hub and the shared approach with the Greece UG.

Contribution of the pilot staff roles to activities and outputs

The most clearly identifiable outputs for the Cyprus UG were delivered through the grants and strategy role. These included:

Development of a UG strategy, which clarified the group’s goals, thematic focus (including women’s rights and female leadership) and organisational direction.
Preparation and submission of a successful Wikimedia Annual Grant application, which secured funding for subsequent activities.
Preparation of an Erasmus+ proposal in collaboration with the Greece UG, focused on partnership development, with plans to reapply in subsequent funding rounds.

The interviewee reported that the strategy and the Annual Grant application were closely linked, with the strategy serving as a reference document for defining priorities and aligning planned activities. The administrative–community support role contributed to some organisational tasks during the pilot period, though the interviewee noted that a significant share of Cyprus-specific work, such as identifying local stakeholders, universities and contextual priorities, continued to be handled by the UG itself. Nevertheless, the presence of the pilot and the subsequent Annual Grant enabled the group to allocate resources for administrative support internally after the pilot period.

Contribution to UG capacity strengthening

The pilot period was reported to have contributed to several areas of capacity strengthening for the Cyprus UG:

Strategic capacity: the strategy provided a shared reference point that the group continues to use to guide decisions and set direction, reducing the need for repeated internal discussions on priorities.
Funding capacity: securing Annual Funding was described as a significant step that enabled the group to plan activities with greater certainty and confidence.
Organisational capacity: the experience supported more structured internal coordination, including clearer approaches to meetings, planning and task distribution.

Following the pilot, the UG allocated part of its Annual Grant to cover administrative support internally, with a core member temporarily taking on this role. While demanding, this period was described as contributing to the establishment of clearer working routines and a more structured way of organising activities, which the group intends to build on in the future. A comparison of the Cyprus UG’s Meta reports for 2023 and 2024 indicates a shift toward a slightly more planned and articulated programme of work in 2024. The 2024 reporting reflects clear intentions around organisational formalisation, regular events and workshops, collaboration with educational and human rights organisations and the production of educational content. While the interviewee did not attribute these developments solely to the pilot, they linked the increased clarity of activities and planning to the existence of a strategy and the successful Annual Grant, both of which were enabled during the pilot period.

Strengths and challenges of the employment model

From the Cyprus UG perspective, the employment model demonstrated clear value, particularly in relation to the grants and strategy role. This role was described as well aligned with the group’s needs and working style. Coordination was clear, with reporting primarily to the Cyprus coordinator and expectations were set early through joint discussions on strategic direction. Once priorities were agreed, the work progressed in a largely autonomous manner, supported by periodic check-ins every one to two months and ad-hoc communication when needed. The interviewee characterised this role as professional, responsive and capable of delivering high-quality outputs with limited supervision. The structured approach to strategy development helped clarify goals for annual funding and EU-level opportunities, strengthening coherence between planning and fundraising.

The CEE Hub’s support was consistently described as a major strength of the model. The interviewee emphasised that the Hub played a critical enabling role by providing technical guidance, strategic direction and hands-on support. The combination of programme-level coordination and technical expertise was seen as particularly valuable and the Hub was described as accessible, non-judgemental and genuinely supportive. This support benefited both staff roles, especially during onboarding and when navigating Wikimedia technical or procedural questions.

Challenges emerged primarily around the administrative–community support role, particularly due to its part-time nature and division across two UGs. From the Cyprus perspective, initial onboarding and orientation took place, including support from the CEE Hub, but the absence of clearly agreed working hours and fixed availability for Cyprus, created uncertainty. The approach of offering flexibility and focusing on deliverables, rather than defined schedules, did not function as intended. Requests and messages arrived at unpredictable times, increasing the coordination burden on the interviewed coordinator. The interviewee described receiving substantial feedback from the Greece UG regarding performance and communication style, while also encountering Cyprus-specific needs that differed from those of Greece. Tasks related to Wikimedia technical administration and Meta page updates required skills that were not sufficiently developed, resulting in repeated requests for support and added strain on coordination. Over time, this placed the Cyprus coordinator in a mediating-type role, significantly increasing their time commitment and emotional load as a volunteer.

In response, the Cyprus side attempted to introduce more structure connected to their share of tasks by allocating specific days and, later, specific hours, to Cyprus. This change improved clarity and responsiveness, and the interviewee noted that this approach began to work better in practice. However, these adjustments were introduced relatively late and the contract was ultimately terminated earlier than planned following a decision initiated by the Greece UG. The experience was shaped by a mix of contextual and organisational factors, and, based on the interview data, different arrangements might have led to different outcomes. Cyprus UG supported the shared decision to conclude the arrangement early, with the aim of maintaining constructive collaboration between the two UGs.

The Cyprus interviewee highlighted that the group operates within a small, close-knit volunteer environment, where personal relationships and trust play an important role. While this facilitated early consensus and collaboration, it also made conflict management more sensitive once difficulties emerged. The interviewee noted that being positioned between the Greece UG and the staff member carried relational costs and highlighted the need for clearer structures, firmer boundaries and a more neutral mediation role in similar future arrangements. Despite these challenges, the Cyprus UG viewed the overall experience as valuable and reaffirmed the importance of the CEE Hub as a stabilising and supportive actor within the model. The pilot contributed to clearer understanding of what types of roles work well for the group, what level of structure is required and how employment arrangements need to be adapted to volunteer-led realities and national contexts.

Lessons learnt and reflections

The Cyprus UG reflected that the pilot was a demanding but highly instructive experience. A central reflection concerned the need for greater specificity and structure at the outset, particularly when staff roles are shared across organisations. The interviewee noted that future collaborations would benefit from clearer articulation, in writing, of each UG’s needs, priorities and expectations, as well as clearer agreement on who acts as liaison and decision-maker. From the Cyprus perspective, the pilot confirmed that professional support in strategy and funding can be highly effective when roles are clearly defined and expectations are aligned. Strategic work benefited from agreed priorities, periodic check-ins and a level of autonomy that suited both the role and the UG’s operating style.

At the same time, the experience highlighted that operational and administrative roles may require more structure and closer supervision than initially anticipated. Offering flexibility and goodwill alone did not provide sufficient clarity for managing day-to-day tasks, availability and communication. The interviewee noted that juggling volunteer responsibilities while supervising a staff member significantly increased workload and emotional strain, particularly when mediation between different expectations became necessary. The UG reflected that supervision itself is a distinct role requiring specific skills, time and confidence. While professional experience helped in some areas, gaps remained, especially in technical oversight and formal staff management. The absence of an inception period, agreed working hours and structured feedback mechanisms limited the ability to stabilise the arrangement early on.

Despite the difficulties, the pilot was described as a valuable personal and organisational learning experience. It prompted reflection on how volunteer groups transition toward more formal operations and what kinds of support are needed to do so sustainably. The experience raised important questions about responsibility, boundaries and readiness that continue to inform current decision-making. The pilot also influenced subsequent organisational choices, including the decision to temporarily internalise administrative tasks rather than recruit again immediately, in order to build clearer structures and reduce the burden of onboarding and supervision.

Recommendations for the Cyprus User Group

If the Cyprus UG were to engage in a similar employment arrangement in the future, the following recommendations emerge from the evaluation findings:

Undertake a structured readiness assessment before hiring staff, particularly when roles are shared with another UG. This should include clarity on internal priorities, division of responsibilities, communication norms and decision-making authority.
Define and resource the supervisory role explicitly. One designated volunteer supervisor should be appointed, with a clear mandate, sufficient time allocation and the skills needed to manage staff in a volunteer-led environment.
Provide targeted management and HR training for volunteer supervisors. Short, practical training focused on supervision, feedback, boundary-setting and task prioritisation would strengthen the group’s capacity to support paid roles effectively.
Emphasise a dedicated inception phase for new staff roles. This should include alignment on expectations, working hours, communication routines, task boundaries between staff and volunteers and, where relevant, coordination arrangements with partner UGs.
Clarify shared arrangements in writing when collaborating with other UGs. Joint roles should be accompanied by clear agreements outlining how time is divided, who assigns tasks, how conflicts are resolved and how performance is reviewed.
Align staffing models with the functional demands of the role. For administrative and coordination functions that require continuity, responsiveness and hands-on support, a clearly scoped role focused on a single national context may be more appropriate than a part-time position shared across multiple UGs.
Consider phased or alternative support models (such as short-term consultancy, outsourcing or facilitation support) when internal capacity to onboard and supervise staff is still developing.

4. Conclusions and general recommendations

The pilot demonstrated that introducing paid staff into smaller, volunteer-led Wikimedia UGs can deliver clear added value, but also bring significant organisational implications that extend beyond funding or technical capacity. Across Greece, Romania/Moldova and Cyprus, paid roles supported continuity, strategic focus and delivery in areas that volunteers had struggled to sustain alongside their voluntary commitments particularly in communication, grants and longer-term planning. At the same time, the pilot showed that staff integration is not a linear or uniform process. Outcomes were shaped not only by role design and individual performance, but by the interaction between paid positions and existing organisational cultures, informal working practices, internal dynamics and levels of readiness.

Across contexts, the pilot underlined that introducing paid staff is as much an organisational and relational process as it is a financial or technical one. Role design, the degree of autonomy required, the staff member’s experience and working style and their compatibility with the volunteer core team, all interacted with existing organisational practices. Where these elements aligned, collaboration and delivery were more stable; where they did not, additional time, negotiation and adaptation were required. Rather than uniformly resolving organisational pressures, some paid roles brought existing tensions to the surface, making them more visible and prompting reflection on internal structures, responsibilities and ways of working. The pilot therefore functioned not only as a capacity-strengthening intervention, but also as an organisational learning process for UGs and the CEE Hub alike, clarifying what types of roles work well, under what conditions and what kinds of preparation and support are required to make employment models sustainable in volunteer-driven environments.

Common themes

Across the three contexts, several common themes emerged:

Added value of paid roles: Paid staff were most effective where tasks required continuity, professional skills or long-term planning that volunteers found difficult to sustain alongside other commitments.
Importance of supervision and clarity: The quality of supervision, communication and role definition strongly influenced whether staff integration supported or strained the group. Clear expectations and regular feedback enabled smoother collaboration.
Interaction with volunteer culture: Informal, trust-based volunteer ways of working can coexist with paid roles, when there is a good fit between the recruited individual and the group’s culture, supported by explicit agreements on boundaries, responsibilities and decision-making.
Complexity of shared roles: Roles shared across UGs created efficiencies and opportunities for exchange, but also increased coordination demands, requiring a strong understanding of context-specific realities, clearer streamlining of multiple lines of communication and guidance, as well as stronger upfront agreements and ongoing alignment.

These themes highlight that the success of paid roles depends not only on funding and individual performance, but on how well staffing models are aligned with volunteer realities, organisational practices and coordination capacity.

General Recommendations

Strategic-level recommendations (CEE Hub, other Hubs)

Frame staffing pilots as organisational learning processes: Staffing initiatives should be positioned not only as mechanisms to deliver outputs, but as opportunities for organisational learning. Introducing paid roles inevitably interacts with volunteer cultures, informal leadership and existing dynamics. Explicitly recognising adaptation and reflection as expected elements of the pilot can reduce pressure on both UGs and staff and create space for learning rather than premature judgement of success or failure.
Support readiness reflection before staffing: Before introducing paid roles, UGs can benefit from structured but proportionate reflection on their internal readiness. The Hub can support this through light-touch tools or guided conversations that help groups consider supervisory capacity, internal clarity, communication habits and decision-making practices. The aim would be to help choose an appropriate form, scope and pace of support.
Strengthen supervision capacity through realistic and flexible pathways: Where UGs rely on volunteers to supervise staff, this role should be explicitly recognised as skilled and time-intensive work. The Hub can support supervision capacity through complementary pathways, depending on context:

- Strengthened volunteer supervision, supported through targeted training, coaching and guidance focused on supervision basics (feedback, prioritisation, boundaries and navigating difficult conversations).
- Resourced supervision, where budgets intentionally allocate time or support for supervision, for example through compensated volunteer time, clearly defined coordination support roles, or external mentoring.

Operational-level recommendations (roles, coordination and supervision)

Establish clear supervision and communication routines: Staff should have clearly defined and regular opportunities to ask questions, receive guidance and clarify priorities. This includes agreed check-in frequency, clear communication channels and shared understanding of how and when support can be requested. Communication should be treated as an intentional practice rather than an assumed by-product of goodwill.
Make expectations, feedback and accountability explicit: Supervision works best when expectations are visible and discussed early. Tasks should be accompanied by clear goals, timelines and context, explaining how they contribute to broader objectives. Where performance does not meet expectations, feedback should be timely, respectful and specific, including clear expectations and realistic timeframes for improvement. Effective supervision requires the confidence and capacity to address issues professionally when needed.
Assign supervision roles deliberately and transparently: Supervision should be entrusted to someone who has sufficient time and emotional capacity, basic supervisory skills, and clear authority to provide structure, set boundaries and ensure accountability. This role should be explicitly named and agreed internally before recruitment begins, recognising the ambiguity typical of volunteer-led environments, while still providing clear direction.
Build early learning and adjustment mechanisms into staffing models: Because fit cannot always be predicted, staffing arrangements should include practical mechanisms to surface issues early, such as probation or review periods, simple progress tracking and periodic reflection points. Roles should also be designed with anticipated evolution or closure in mind, with clear expectations for documentation, handover and communication to preserve learning, continuity and trust.
Support staff performance through shared context, not only task instructions: Providing organisational and movement context alongside task instructions helps staff understand priorities and constraints, work more independently and contribute ideas beyond narrowly defined assignments. Context-rich communication supports learning, initiative and alignment, particularly in complex, volunteer-led environments.
Screen explicitly for suitability to volunteer-led contexts: Recruitment into volunteer-led UGs should assess not only technical competence but also fit with horizontal, values-driven ways of working. Screening should consider experience with volunteers or non-hierarchical settings, comfort with evolving priorities, ability to work independently while seeking clarification appropriately and willingness to learn Wikimedia norms and practices. Making these expectations explicit can reduce the risk of mismatch.

Recommendations for User Groups preparing to introduce paid roles

Reflect on readiness in a light-touch but honest way: Before introducing paid roles, UGs should reflect on how they work, not only on what work needs to be done. Groups can consider whether there is shared clarity on priorities and decision-making, whether someone has the time and confidence to supervise and whether basic routines for coordination and feedback exist. Partial readiness does not prevent staffing, but may suggest starting smaller or choosing alternative support models.
Consider a range of support models, not only employment: UGs can reduce pressure on volunteers and build confidence gradually by exploring multiple forms of support, including short-term consultancy for specific outputs, outsourcing administrative tasks, mentoring or peer support from other UGs or regional structures and time-limited, clearly scoped staff roles embedded within the group.
Recognise supervision as real work and resource it accordingly: Supervision should be explicitly agreed, acknowledged as requiring time and emotional labour, and supported through training, coaching or peer learning where possible. Where volunteer capacity is limited, groups may explore external mentoring or short-term paid coordination support to reduce strain.
Build feedback and adaptation into staffing approaches from the start: Groups should plan for learning and adjustment by including probation or review points, regular check-ins and safe spaces to revisit tasks, expectations and working arrangements without attributing fault.