Talk:Updating the ecosystem of Wikimedia organizations/Recognition and Funding for Movement Organizations/Affiliation
This page is for discussions related to the Updating the ecosystem of Wikimedia organizations/Recognition and Funding for Movement Organizations/Affiliation page. Please remember to:
|  |
Requirements for Hubs
Currently there is following requirement for the hubs: Have no overlap in regional or thematic audience with any other existing hub. However, there is hubs like Wikimedia Europe, Wikimedia CEE Hub and maybe Wikimedia Northern Europe (though Wikimedia Northern Europe havent applied any grants). Is there any idea how the overlapping regional areas should work? I am interest this because from Finland point of view it is usefull keep active cross area connections over baltic sea. This is for external grant purposes, but also because travel between Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia and also Norway is convient. --Zache (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
- This is a great point. To my knowledge at present, neither Wikimedia Europe nor Wikimedia Northern Europe have expressed interest in becoming a recognized hub or pursuing WMF funding for that purpose (not to say they don't act as hubs in practice). If that situation continues, this proposed model would have no impact on how those three entities currently operate.
- If either WMEU or WM Northern Europe did want to establish a recognized hub, we would need to clarify operating boundaries between groups. The situation that we intend to avoid is duplicating administrative overhead and resources covering the same types of operations and the same audiences. RMaung (WMF) (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- @RMaung (WMF), Wikimedia Northern Europe had regular common meetings, but during COVID-19 they stopped or transformed into direct bilateral cooperation. For example, Wikimedia Finland has participated in Wikimedia Estonia's activities in Estonia, AvoinGLAM and Wikimedia Sweden have worked together, and Wikimedia Finland and Wikimedia Norway have worked together on Sámi language related topics. However, what we are currently trying to do is restore the common regional events. One open issue is that the region also includes chapters/user groups without annual WMF funding (e.g. Wikimedia Denmark, Wikimedians of Latvia User Group), active editor communities without any affiliate (e.g. the Icelandic and Lithuanian Wikipedia communities), and small language communities in geographical areas where the affiliate itself has no WMF funding (e.g. Faroese in Denmark, Latgalian in Latvia). There are additional examples too, but you get the idea from these. So the question is: how should this be organized in the grant system if the target is to keep these smaller ones on board too? (For the meetings the main issue is funding for travel + accommodation, as venue + food is a much smaller part of the total costs.) Also one note is that the conference grants current 10000€ minimum limit may make it too big for this use case. --Zache (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Zache Thank you for sharing the funding need scenarios with examples. In this case, a rapid fund would be excellent and supportive for the needs highlighted here. Currently, rapid funds can support Individuals coordinating local events related to global campaigns in their community, informal and formal community meetups [local and cross-border], and Wikimedia editathons and workshops, amongst others. What you have described here seems to be a fit for this funding program.
- Adding to this, if useful, we also explore what the most supportive funding transfer mechanisms would be. In some cases, we recommend working with a fiscal sponsor who can handle the finances when none of the parties wants to or feel well-equipped to do so.
- These are some of the measures we take towards supporting newcomers and new funding applicants.
- In most cases, and especially when an applicant is in doubt, we encourage connecting with the regional program officer. Thanks! VThamaini (WMF) (talk) 08:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- @RMaung (WMF), Wikimedia Northern Europe had regular common meetings, but during COVID-19 they stopped or transformed into direct bilateral cooperation. For example, Wikimedia Finland has participated in Wikimedia Estonia's activities in Estonia, AvoinGLAM and Wikimedia Sweden have worked together, and Wikimedia Finland and Wikimedia Norway have worked together on Sámi language related topics. However, what we are currently trying to do is restore the common regional events. One open issue is that the region also includes chapters/user groups without annual WMF funding (e.g. Wikimedia Denmark, Wikimedians of Latvia User Group), active editor communities without any affiliate (e.g. the Icelandic and Lithuanian Wikipedia communities), and small language communities in geographical areas where the affiliate itself has no WMF funding (e.g. Faroese in Denmark, Latgalian in Latvia). There are additional examples too, but you get the idea from these. So the question is: how should this be organized in the grant system if the target is to keep these smaller ones on board too? (For the meetings the main issue is funding for travel + accommodation, as venue + food is a much smaller part of the total costs.) Also one note is that the conference grants current 10000€ minimum limit may make it too big for this use case. --Zache (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Multiple affiliates in one nation
Hello, I appreciate the general direction of this proposal, so please do not take this a a blocker. It is simply an area that I think needs more thought. What should happen in the case of large nations where there may already be multiple user groups and chapters? The United States has two chapters and several user groups, and as far as I know all of them tend to get along fine, and the two chapters don't try to claim jurisdiction over each other or the user groups. But this proposal says, "No user group can claim a local boundary within a country that already has an existing chapter." That seems not to be workable in the United States in the current arrangement where there are two sub-national chapters, no national chapters, and as far as I know no plans, interest, or benefits from the complexities of lumping a large geographic area under the umbrella of a single chapter. Perhaps the current arrangement should be allowed to continue for countries over a certain geographic size where a single national chapter would be unwieldy, current arrangements seem fine, and there may be benefits from allowing new user groups or chapters to self-organize within the relatively large nation. ↠Pine (✉) 05:03, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Annual budgets for user groups
Hello, this is another issue that may need a little more thought but probably can be resolved without causing bigger issues in the proposal. The proposal includes as an expectation for recognized user groups, "Documents a detailed annual budget for its activities on a Wikimedia project." However, annual budgets and plans seem unrealistic and burdensome for relatively small groups, and seem more aligned with General Fund grants than with Rapid or Project grants. I suggest rethinking this requirement so that it's more appropriate for small groups that may not have a staff and may not need the degree of complexity and planning involved with annual budgets. ↠Pine (✉) 05:10, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Minimum number of affiliation to consider for a hub
Hi, I've seen a trend that two or three small UGs decide to create a hub between themselves and I don't think it's sustainable and leads to fragmentation. I know there are some requirements already but having something hashed out and clear that hubs are about a decent number of affiliations would be really helpful. Thanks! Amir (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)