Movement Strategy/Recommendations/Integration

Building our shared future

Recommendations for how we can achieve the Wikimedia 2030 vision

In 2017, we set ourselves an ambitious goal: to become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge by 2030.

So how can we get there? Our Movement has analyzed, discussed, and distilled ideas for our future into recommendations for how to bring this vision to life. These outline how we can grow sustainably and inclusively. They introduce ways we can make the most of new opportunities and meet the challenges of today and tomorrow. And how we can strive for knowledge equity and knowledge as a service. So that everyone – those already within our Movement and anyone who wishes to join – can play an effective role in capturing, sharing, and enabling access to free knowledge.

Recommendations The Recommendations that follow are intentionally structured in a What, Why, How, and Expected Outcomes format. The What includes the needs that have been identified, the Why includes the reasons these are needed to achieve the strategic direction, the How includes the steps that are required to get there, and the Expected Outcomes are the tangible, verifiable, and measurable actions we expect to see as a result of these recommendations. These recommendations are integrally and holistically connected and are not presented in any implied order of importance.

Promote Sustainability and Resilience

This recommendation proposes the idea of staying relevant and receiving adequate support for the growth of the Movement towards 2030 and beyond. It is supported by the recommendations ‘Innovate in Free Knowledge’, ‘Improve User Experience’, ‘Ensure Equity in Decision-Making’ and ‘Create Cultural Change for Inclusive Communities’.

What

In order to “become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge,” as a Movement, we need to be sustainable in terms of human and financial resources. Only with committed volunteers, staff members, and projects which are easily recognized and trusted to attract users and donors, will we be able to bring about the changes we aspire to make.

For this, we must support people: a dynamic and often changing volunteer base able to bring new ideas, leaders, and methods for inclusion, and staff that provides the support systems and aid communities in building long-term partnerships to allow our outreach to expand. We must empower and support local groups and all stakeholders to tap into existing and new ways of acquiring funds and other resources and become more self-sufficient.

Why

People. Our future is dependent on a healthy, collaborative environment and continual inflow of people. Contributor retention depends on multiple factors. Collaborative online spaces rely on the quality of user interactions and support systems to engage newcomers, assist experienced Wikimedians, remain sustainable, and grow in resilience. Across our Movement, we need to account for diverse engagement methods, and appreciation mechanics fitted to the global nature of our Movement, recognizing the on- and offline contributions of our stakeholders in a contextual way.

In our current setting, support and appreciation is distributed unevenly. To create the space for sustainable growth and resilience for our Movement, we need to take a more proactive approach in reaching out to those who are not yet represented in our communities and who advocate for our Movement. This needs to be balanced by better means of valuing the people who are already in our Movement and who have developed collaborative relationships, or we lose efficiency, momentum, and capacity because of high turnover. Some of our partners are impacted by our current failures to provide metrics on their contributions’ usefulness, lack of some Movement stakeholders’ ability to commit to long-term planning, and a limited vision of our mutual accountabilities without public recognition. Without addressing these issues, we will be unable to reach the highest potential for our partnerships with institutions, galleries, libraries, archives, and museums, among others.

Financial Resources. The ambition of our strategic direction will require an increase in revenue for the Movement beyond incremental growth, as the current level will be insufficient to grow our Movement to create local capacity for leadership, decision-making, and accountability and bring about the desired change. The current model, being heavily dependent on banner donations, also lacks resilience against external changes, such as disintermediation trends or cultural shifts that make Wikipedia less attractive to small donors, and misses the potential that would come with a diversified approach that would make the most of opportunities emerging from our local presence across the globe and revenue possibilities related to the use of our platform and product. With almost all revenue streams passing through the few largest Movement organizations, there are missed opportunities and inequity due to limitations on international donations and funding, and the inherent power disparity.

How

People. To achieve sustainable growth and resilience of our Movement, we recommend an approach based on diverse pathways for continued and improved engagement of people along with financial and staff support for it. These pathways need to include existing Movement organizing, building of partnerships, and technical engagement opportunities, but also acknowledge new ways of contributing, like encouraging and empowering Movement advocates.

Supporting individuals in this way will enable more people to take part and lead to more online and offline activities. As these new organizers will receive professional training and coaching, among other tools, it will benefit their level of expertise and professional lives overall. As a result, they will either continue to be ardent spokespeople for the vision and goals of our Movement or build a livelihood through and from their engagement, having options to become contractors or staff of regional structures, supporting the continued growth of the Movement.

Following a people-centered approach, we must begin to recognize and appreciate not only editing contributions, but the value of mentoring, training, advocating, and other activities which strengthen our Movement. We must develop further support systems to enable and engage all stakeholders. Finding improved ways to recognize and appreciate their work, providing a proper environment, and tailored pathways that attract and retain more people from a variety and diversity of languages and cultural backgrounds will increase our outreach on a local or global level.

We need to provide more visible and easy-to-access support to strengthen our mutual ties with all types of stakeholders. Developing protocols to enhance and expand our mutually beneficial relationships with partners and providing them with metrics on the impact and use of materials they provided will be mutually beneficial and could extend our outreach as stewards of free knowledge.

We need to recognize and celebrate that there are more avenues to participate in the Movement than editing alone. Volunteering occurs as a privilege to those who have time to commit to unpaid services. If we are to grow, we need to consider designing systems which compensate people for non-editing volunteerism, such as advocacy and capacity building, through various means which could include honoraria, stipends, reimbursement of expenses, scholarships, equipment, internet access, or other forms of recognition.

Financial resources. To achieve sustainable growth and resilience of our Movement, we recommend an approach based on several actions to ensure the availability of needed financial resources through diversification of the overall revenue channels. More targeted efforts in local contexts could lead to higher yields with smaller efforts and could serve to bring more balance and equity in revenues globally. For example, building up and increasing the capacity to raise, spend, and account for funds could promote equity between unequally privileged regions of the world.

Fundraising strategies should be tailored to local context and needs, but we must also ensure that we have agreed upon limits that are respected by all — such as the design serving the mission and honoring basic donors’ rights, or the principle that products and properties created by the Movement remain non-commercial. To allow for movement growth we must develop an overarching long-term strategy, which is adaptable to local contexts, to be overseen by the global Governance Body, to provide for sufficient revenues to guarantee the sustainability of the Movement.

One avenue that could be explored is considering that the application programming interfaces (API) of Wikipedia and Wikidata. We are not capitalizing on this to meet our resourcing needs, i.e. while keeping the APIs free for everyone, we could explore offering “tiered” premium service for large users of our API. Successful open-source software projects tend to rely on a wide array of stakeholders with diverse goals and interests sharing the resource burden (money, staff, volunteer time, etc.) of improving the software, which does not currently happen for our platform. With more intentional stewardship we might be able to realize its potential.

In general, the resource generation opportunities in our products and platforms need to be further explored, through the development of a long-term strategy to increase revenue across stakeholders for not only meeting current but also future needs.

Expected outcomes

People

Design and provide standards for multilingual professional training for organizers, advocates, and staff to help the members of our Movement to achieve and sustain our strategy.
Elaborate a list of indicators to ensure cultural change happens and measure them on a regular basis.
Grow communities and hire dedicated local staff, when relevant, who are part of the communities they serve, to increase community involvement in leadership and the ability to advocate on their own behalf.
Design a systematic approach to evaluate volunteer needs to take into account their volunteering profile and local context as the basis for comprehensive and effective volunteer support and recognition.
Conduct research into opportunities to better recognize all types of contributions through various compensation paths for non-editing volunteerism.
Design systems to track and support contributors taking up new roles, to increase their satisfaction and productivity over the life of their participation.

Structure

Design a document that captures basic rules for fundraising and defines what parts might or might not be changed and adjusted according to local context and needs.
Improve brand awareness for current and future projects, to secure the attention, trust, and interest of users, volunteers, and partners.
Utilize research to develop a long-term strategy, which can be adapted to local contexts, to inform fundraising and increase revenue streams across the Movement that are consistent with our shared principles and is overseen by the global Governance Body.
Identify and resolve the core issues which prevent our software platform from having a more thriving third-party ecosystem.

Create Cultural Change for Inclusive Communities

This recommendation proposes the idea of making our ecosystem a welcoming, safe, and collaborative environment to ensure growth and sustainability. It shares commonalities with ‘Improve User Experience’, ‘Evaluate, Iterate, and Adapt’, ‘Provide for Safety and Security’, ‘Ensure Equity in Decision-Making’, and ‘Promote Sustainability and Resilience’.

What

In order to “become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge,” as a Movement, we need to make cultural change founded in Movement-wide standards for an inclusive, welcoming, safe, and collaborative environment that enables sustainability and future growth through extensive consultation with the involved communities.

Based on that consultation, we must create reporting processes and enforcement mechanisms for those standards, which respect community autonomy as much as possible but include safeguards for when a community consistently fails to apply the standards. These mechanisms need to be evaluated to test their effectiveness in bringing equitable opportunities for participation and diversity.

Why

Our communities generally do not reflect the diversity of profiles of our global society and suffer from a lack of renewal in the most active contributors and positions of responsibility. The alarming gender gap in contributors can be attributed to several causes, among them the lack of a safe environment, as evidenced by numerous reported cases of harassment over the past years. People feel isolated when facing problematic behavior issues because our systems do not readily provide for incident reporting and follow-up in easily-findable procedures.

This lack of safety in the current culture of many Wikimedia projects limits the work of the existing community and is a barrier for new people to join. Diversifying requires different types of contributors and different innovations in collecting and creating free knowledge. These may not be entirely aligned with today’s projects, but still have a place in the Wikimedia Movement. We must ensure that we have a welcoming and usable environment where contributors and new communities can safely flourish. The effects are not restricted to the online communities, but reach into external social media channels, off-wiki communities, workgroups, and organizations: more often than not there are the same conflicts and biases with the same people and views missing from the table.

How

To make the cultural change to become inclusive and welcoming to larger and more diverse communities, we recommend an approach based on several actions. We must create a Movement Charter that lays out the shared values and principles of the Movement and from which other governance documents will derive—for online and offline governance alike. Establishing a unified baseline from which nobody can fall below enables us to set ground rules which can be contextualized according to specific use and enriched with local requirements.

In addition to the Charter, we must have a universal Code of Conduct setting standards of behavior for all stakeholders and a Movement Governance Document for all offline Movement bodies and organizations. These documents should align and reinforce each other in our shared values. Designed with consultation and based upon existing best practices, the documents will also specify adequate structures for conflict management and measures for situations where the basic values and principles are breached. These and all Movement policies and procedures need to be routinely evaluated to ensure that they provide equitable opportunities for inclusion and participation in the Movement, create frameworks for accountability, and counterbalance existing biases, both direct and systemic.

In order for the cultural change to be effective, there needs to be continual improvement in the editors’ user experience in the platforms that lowers the technical knowledge requirements, capacity building to learn the skills to enable safety and security for new and existing editors, and access to decision-making in an equitable way. By focusing on the unique needs and challenges of the stakeholders, which reinforce the values of inclusivity, we will make effective change to ensure our sustainability. However, we should not only take into account the needs and views of the existing communities but also those of future contributors in order to ensure equitable opportunities for participation.

Expected outcomes

Create a Movement Charter of shared values and principles to sustain and grow a welcoming, safe Movement, through a consultative process of all stakeholders.
Create a clear and transparent Code of Conduct for Movement-wide behavioral standards and enforcements to establish basic community responsibilities for safeguarding and maintaining a healthy working atmosphere, along with procedures to be followed for reporting and follow-up.
Establish Movement Governance Documents for all offline Movement bodies and organizations.
Develop a process of evaluation to test the effectiveness of existing policies and procedures at every level of the Movement to ensure equitable opportunities for participation concerning diversity and inclusion efforts for existing and future communities.

Improve User Experience

This recommendation proposes the idea of evaluating and making changes to our systems so that they better serve the needs of our stakeholders. These ideas are discussed in the ‘Create Cultural Change for Inclusive Communities’, ‘Promote Sustainability and Resilience’, ‘Provide for Safety and Security’, and ‘Coordinate Across Stakeholders’.

What

In order to “become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge,” as a Movement, we need to continually improve the design of our platforms to enable everyone—whatever their gender, culture, technological background, or physical and mental abilities—to enjoy a fluid, effective, and positive experience during both the consultation and contribution to knowledge throughout the Wikimedia ecosystem.

The strategic direction also states that “anyone who shares our vision should able to join us,” so we must strive towards a reality where people are not held back in any way by related barriers or unaddressed needs by our technology and people. We must encourage communities to work towards shaping the projects to match the needs of those who are using them as knowledge consumers, along with those who are not yet participating as contributors.

Why

For knowledge consumers, focusing on improving the user experience for any Wikimedia platform is strategic when considering technological changes. To focus on delivering engaging, free knowledge consumption experiences, it is necessary to embrace technological advancements. With the increasing diversity of devices, interfaces, and interactions with all sorts of intelligent virtual assistants, we must pay attention to both the information of knowledge and how it is consumed. For contributors, ensuring that everyone is included and has opportunities to learn and contribute is a matter of equity and knowledge integrity; the risk of exclusion has direct repercussions in shrinking the base of contributors and threatening the future sustainability, accuracy, and relevance of the Movement.

Having a good user experience is part of the cultural change that we desire for this Movement and guarantees the community's participation and diversity. Participation affects not only the quality of our work, but also the continuity of the project, which often relies on communities whose core editors — both in terms of number of edits and the functional role they occupy — are still the same ones as five to ten years ago.

In the current Wikimedia structural reality, content is central with all the processes, tools, platforms, and even communication channels orbiting around it. Though this structure has been successful in achieving popularity and replication across communities, it has also become an obstacle for engaging with other knowledge communities. Having a good user experience requires continually improving on multiple dimensions and taking a more people-centered approach in the way we operate. For example, the first experiences newcomers have and their ability to access learning resources, mentors, or guidance to perform any task is especially crucial for fostering their retention and continued engagement.

Ensuring a space free of conflict, or with mechanisms to mitigate conflict, is fundamental and benefits all contributors. The specific solutions could range from hiring staffing dedicated to conflict resolution, to defining clear processes and follow-up practices, to training. Toxic environments can affect contributors based on their individual characteristics; there should be clear understanding in the communities of the existence of toxicity as well as about how to both prevent it and address it if it arises.

How

To improve the user experience in both the consultation and contribution to knowledge throughout the Wikimedia ecosystem, we recommend an approach based on several actions. Enhancing the user experience requires following a people-centered, iterative process of research and analysis, proposal and testing of changes, and dissemination of the results among all the stakeholders.

In Wikimedia, this involves both the designers, technical developers, and the communities, ultimately responsible for accepting or discarding the implementation of these changes. For this, communities must be aware of the current state of the situation and take responsibility for the platform, accepting and encouraging the changes which address the barriers and needs that prevent their growth, diversification, and participation throughout the world. To raise awareness, we must visualize the degree of satisfaction of every product and functionality in a transparent and findable way, so that they can be constantly monitored by any stakeholder, and receive suggestions for improvement or query the attention of the development teams.

In our Movement, the research and analysis of the user experience requires observing the interactions within and outside our platforms to evaluate the impact of a diverse range of both technological and human aspects that affect it, such as the platform technological characteristics, social conflicts, lack of access to suitable learning resources, among others. In addition, it must take into account a diverse range of advanced user roles requiring highly specialized workflows, technical contributors (such as template maintainers or Cloud Services tool developers), as well as those of newcomers and emerging communities.

Any changes proposed must be tested to ensure usability and accessibility while safeguarding the privacy and security of users. Feedback from newcomers is particularly valuable for evaluating best practices, as experienced contributors may have already developed workarounds for system limitations. In general, having a wide pool of users who test technology will guarantee good usability, which is especially key for newcomers and is essential to guarantee our growth and diversity.

Based on current reported feedback and results, the user experience would improve by including, welcoming, and appreciating newcomers, with easy-to-find and easy-to-access resources, active outreach, and support programs. Mentorship programs, in order to facilitate learning processes, have previously been effective. For all users, transparency of the platform’s functionalities, availability of learning resources and training, and clear reporting channels to escalate access, human, or technological concerns with appropriate urgency (e.g., fix the platform for the visually impaired) are needed. Policies for conflict management must provide methods to deal with issues before, during, and after.

The development of solutions to these identified needs and problems must be prioritized with urgency and receive constant attention by developers and designers to ensure the goal of including future communities. To advance the development of new interfaces and other more speculative features, following new technological trends and those on the horizon, we encourage the creation of a new communication space to continue developing the software in coordination with Third-party developers.

Expected outcomes

Technology

Involve representatives of all stakeholders in an iterative process of research of the UX within and outside our platforms to propose, test, and implement changes.
Provide easy-to-use technological enhancements that have been tested with a broad representative sample of current stakeholders and potential new members.
Provide user interfaces purposely designed for a wide range of devices, such as from mobile phones and computers, so that users can contribute in diverse contexts.
Provide newcomers with easy-to-find and easy-to-understand resources, such as onboarding media and guiding interfaces helping them independently navigate and learn their way.
Provide easily accessible pathways for users to report incidents, either technical or human, and have them addressed effectively, and with appropriate urgency, regardless of language or location, while respecting privacy.
Provide new mechanisms that allow finding peers with specific interests, roles, and objectives along with communication channels to interact and collaborate.
Provide mechanisms so that users can give feedback on the degree of satisfaction with every platform and functionality, and an easy method for everyone to access this information.
Ensure our platforms comply with the most advanced accessibility guidelines (WCAG for web, W3C mobile web best practices, etc.), such as through diverse font sizes for the visually impaired or video subtitles for the auditory impaired.
Ease the path to propose and create new wikis (including new language versions) and to reuse community-developed software features on them.
Invest in efficient and usable developer tooling to allow technical contributors to create and maintain their tools.
Create a communication space for Third-party developers to encourage the enhancement of our software aiming at creating new interfaces based on technological trends such as AR browsers or IoT Glasses that improve our user experiences.

People

Provide training to avoid conflicts, processes for mediation and conflict resolution when they occur, and follow-up best practices to apply in the aftermath of the conflict to avoid future recurrences.
Provide a welcoming environment through mentor-based programs that actively reach out to newcomers using best practices both within and beyond the Movement to help and guide them in contributing.

Provide for Safety and Security

This recommendation proposes the idea of the safety and security of Movement stakeholders as a fundamental requirement. As such, the well-being, safety and security, protection, and privacy of any participant in the Movement is embedded in all other recommendations.

What

In order to “become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge”, as a Movement, we must ensure contributors have the proper conditions and resources enabling them to work without having their personal and communal security compromised. Any issue related to the safety of free knowledge contributors in one community will be considered a matter of utmost importance to the whole Movement.

We must provide policies and procedures for all stakeholders’ protection, based upon a contextual evaluation adapted to varying environments. These need to ensure participants have adequate safeguards to prevent and react to threatening situations. Necessary resources must be made accessible for all stakeholders to be able to deploy the infrastructure needed to protect them in their context.

Why

Geopolitical tensions often threaten individual liberties and restrict Internet use, making it crucial to guarantee safety and security if we want to allow for a diverse and globally relevant Movement. Many communities face government bans or threats, feeling isolated, and fear for their safety when contributing to Wikimedia. There is currently no systematic approach to support contributors at risk due to their participation in Movement activities, and a lack of the essential local capacity to protect contributors’ anonymity. If we want to stay inclusive and embrace future communities, we need to provide mechanisms to mitigate the barriers which threaten safety and security.

There is a structural and widening gap between the growth of the world’s online population and the areas where the Wikimedia Movement is trying to engage. Part of this is due to the lack of understanding of the possible threats and dangers, from online harassment and bullying to legal prosecution, that engagement in Wikimedia projects may imply in every context. Another part is a lack of knowledge of the actions required to tackle threats and potentially threatening situations. In some cases, these threats are rooted in political instability and can take the form of state-sponsored censorship and legal action against individuals.

In other cases, there can be organizations or groups that might try to harm contributors or the platform as a whole, or pressure them to change content. The consequences of these threats can be severe, including death because of suicide or murder. Ensuring anonymity, privacy, and access to the necessary security measures to address practices such as doxing and trolling is critical to strengthening and expanding the community in the future and to the sustainability of the movement. We must ensure that the participation in our projects does not tolerate any kind of violence.

How

To ensure contributors have the proper conditions and resources, enabling them to work without having their personal and communal security compromised, we recommend an approach based on several actions. We must bring clarity to our policies on behavior and adopt a universal Code of Conduct developed through community consultations and contextualized for local circumstances, which determines acceptable behaviors essential for the entire Movement. Beyond the Code of Conduct for our internal relations, we will need a system that outlines procedures to provide for protection and safety from external factors. This system needs to encompass evaluating training needs in diverse contexts, providing training and technical solutions, and developing a system for emergency response.

We must establish a methodology of documenting the different contexts in which volunteers contribute, the current threats that might be encountered while contributing, and communication channels available in stakeholders’ environments. Based on those findings, we need to develop a digital security plan that includes processes to protect the safety and security of our stakeholders, as well as emergency procedures to follow if the need arises. It must be widely available and include best practices on suicide prevention and support for vulnerable consumers of knowledge.

We must offer training, as needed, to raise awareness and build response capacity to provide ways to safeguard the privacy and security of those contributors who put themselves at risk or face complex challenges due to their participation. For prevention, we need built-in platform mechanisms aimed at anonymization. When that is not possible, we must disseminate knowledge among contributors on preserving their anonymity through external mechanisms (such as VPN, IP masking, Tor, etc.), which might require some technical support and personalized training. Equally, training needs to be established for volunteers and staff dedicated to trust and safety (including members of communities, such as administrators or Arbitration Committee members) in order to provide psychological and resource support to participants.

In the event of an emergency, we need to have a clear, rapid response and support infrastructure ready and easily accessible, so that editors have available resources to mitigate harm, such as psychological support (e.g., psychologists, mediators), legal assistance (e.g., list of partner lawyers, facilitation of legal representation at a local level), or a fast-track escalation path in life-threatening situations. These might also include procedures for reacting to large-scale challenges, like Internet access shutdowns.

The entire Movement must be aware of the different risks involved in contributing from specific regions and balancing those conversations with our strategic needs for public neutrality. Nonetheless, for a matter of effectiveness, the training and support infrastructure needs to be provided by stakeholders in touch with the region who have a higher degree of knowledge of the legal aspects and cultural idiosyncrasies (in the frame of an emergent regional structure or another entity which can ensure this knowledge). Regional structures would be active participants in adapting and evaluating safety and security guidelines and procedures.

Expected outcomes

Create clarity and transparency around behavioral standards and enforcement/resolution processes/procedures for all Movement stakeholders. This would begin with a universal Code of Conduct and establish viable structures for conflict resolution across all Movement levels.
Develop a security plan, based on an analysis of contextualized environments and participant needs, which organizes technical, human, and legal support processes to protect the physical and psychological well-being, safety, security, anonymity, and privacy of all our stakeholders, along with rapid-response procedures to follow in emergencies.
Establish easily accessible incident reporting and support systems on and off-Wiki to provide stakeholders with solutions to protect themselves, take precautionary measures, and mitigate threats to their security, safety, well-being, and privacy.

Ensure Equity in Decision-Making

This recommendation proposes the idea of ensuring equity in decision-making throughout our Movement. It is supported by the recommendations: ‘Promote Sustainability and Resilience’, ‘Coordinate Across Stakeholders’, ‘Create Cultural Change for Inclusive Communities’, and ‘Provide for Safety and Security’.

What

In order to “become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge,” as a Movement, we need to ensure equity in decision-making at all levels. The Movement is composed of communities and individuals from all over the world. This diversity and richness of perspectives is essential in moving towards knowledge equity, which can only be achieved by “focussing our efforts on the knowledge and communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege.”

We have made a commitment to “welcome people from every background to build strong and diverse communities.” Hence, we consider that empowering these people in current and future communities is essential on our path towards the future and the well-being of our Movement. This empowerment includes sharing responsibilities and ensuring equitable opportunities for participation in decision-making. Inclusive growth and diversification requires a cultural change founded on more equitable processes and representative structures.

Why

Our historical structures and processes are currently reinforcing the concentration of power and resources in the Movement around established participants and entities. This means that a number of decisions are made without consulting those who are affected by those decisions, which not only hinders the growth of the Movement but also affects its legitimacy.

We are also far from an equitable model for resource allocation, and only increasing access to money or grants will not be sufficient to address equity issues in how resource decisions are made or prioritized. New participatory decision-making and processes need to engage the strength, expertise, and knowledge of communities impacted by these decisions.

Every community has the mandate, knowledge, and resources to be present in any decision-making process that affects them, make decisions and have meaningful input on related issues including opportunities to access resources in an equitable manner. The Movement structures must serve and support every community transparently, responding to needs specific to each context, with a sense of urgency when required.

How

To realize these goals, we must create new structures to enable the distribution of power and resources and to represent all the stakeholders and legitimize decisions that affect them. The new structures are being proposed after assessing the functions and impact of the existing structures. These structures need not begin in full force during the implementation of the Movement Strategy and can be rolled out in a gradual and emergent manner with consultation and after more involved discussions with the stakeholders.

This recommendation is structured in subsections, which are founded on the premise of contextualized consultation in an equitable process with broad and diverse stakeholder participation guiding all decision-making and allocation actions:

Establish a common framework for decision-making
Enable equitable representation in global decision-making
Enable the empowerment of local communities
Participative resource allocation
Open pathways to power positions

Establish a common framework for decision-making

What Our Movement will make decisions in context, as solutions to common challenges might look substantially different in various parts of the world. We aim for shared responsibility and inclusion. To make this work, we must establish a Movement Charter to define and set a common understanding of the principles, values, and governance behaviors that we share, as well as lay out the primary purpose of the Movement and provide a sense of belonging and togetherness for current and future Movement participants.

This charter will determine the rules of engagement for our ecosystem and serve as the foundation for maintaining safe and collaborative working environments that are welcoming to everyone who joins with constructive intent. For resources, it will include principles for Movement-wide revenue streams, a common direction, and a shared understanding of how resources should be allocated, to whom, and for what purpose with appropriate accountability mechanisms.

Why A Charter of values and principles is fundamental to align the vision of all the participants of the Movement and to lay out the aspirations and higher ambition of the Movement — the vision. We want to have a diverse Movement, with new voices and communities in decision-making positions. Therefore, it is fundamental to have a common framework of action to define how we must work together and how we can strengthen the Movement vision to become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge by 2030.

How We expect the Charter to guarantee legitimacy for the entire Movement, and we expect it to be owned by a global governance and accountability body.

Enable equitable representation in global decision-making

What In order to make Movement-wide decisions, we require a global structure that responds to the needs of the Movement as a whole, and that represents the communities in an equitable way. We propose the creation of a global Governance Body in order to fulfill this function.

Why The creation of the Wikimedia Foundation originated in the need to manage the resources from fundraising, support the technical infrastructure, provide a responsible legal entity for Wikipedia. Although the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees (WMF Board) has, by default, the role of representing the whole Movement, there is a growing perception that a global structure working in close association with the WMF Board is needed to encompass a higher representation of the diversity of the Movement itself.

As per the present composition/criterion of the WMF Board, some of the key areas essential for the overall growth of the Movement are not well represented (e.g., technical vision, governance, and management expertise, perspectives from emerging communities). This also limits the role of stewardship that the Wikimedia Foundation will have to play in the next stages of the Movement Strategy Process. To overcome these voids, we propose a global Governance Body to assist the WMF Board in matters of strategic importance. These matters which affect Movement-wide strategy concerns can be referred by the WMF Board to this global Governance Body.

We believe that any decision affecting our communities must involve the community to some extent to prevent imbalanced outcomes. Establishing a representative global Governance Body is an essential source of legitimacy for the power of the Movement to guarantee more equitable opportunities and sustained growth. The structure, besides providing representation of the communities, also ensures that communities are in line with the Movement, sharing responsibility for it.

The existing Movement structures (AffCom, FDC, etc.) may or may not have a place in this new structure (and if they continue, their existing scope and charters may be modified). How the current structures of the Movement engage and interact with the structures of this recommendation will be collectively and inclusively discussed during implementation.

How

We need to establish a global and strategy Governance Body for the Movement, which is built by both elected and selected members, representative of targeted diversity goals, across the Movement. Its responsibilities will include, but not be limited to:
Setting and maintaining the strategy with community input wherever possible/viable;
Ensuring alignment of the strategic principles of the Movement;
Recommending and making changes to the Movement Charter, as needed;
Holding all Movement organizations accountable for their use of Movement funds and trademarks and ensuring they support the Wikimedia mission and vision, complying with the Movement Charter.

Based on these responsibilities, the global Governance Body will be the most legitimate body to ensure that all the stakeholders are also in line with the Movement strategy, accountable for its activities, responsible for its development, and fully coordinated to advance towards the strategic direction.

Enable the empowerment of local communities

What We believe that empowered communities are those who have the capacity and the resources to make and implement their own decisions to meet their differing needs and ensure sustainability and growth. Local and regional connections hold much potential for capacity building, if built upon and appropriately resourced. As a result, new connections and structures will emerge that will bring the principle of subsidiarity into practice.

Why To reach our strategic direction, stakeholders and systems in our Movement must function together as a collaborative, supportive ecosystem and avoid confusion over authority. The most effective capacity building is respectful to local cultures and conditions, and empowers participants to develop, test, and share their own promising practices.

The Wikimedia Movement has grown in independent and distributed ways, but it still lacks the support systems, agency, training, and infrastructure to support the next level of growth. As an example, today, it is sometimes difficult to provide resources or protection for communities in their contexts, especially for countries like Iran, Russia, Venezuela, or others that are not yet part of the Movement. It is also difficult for joint decisions to be made when decisions involve multiple parts of the Movement. These difficulties justify the need for an approach that is both more locally-driven, and more coordinated across communities.

How We propose emergent regional structures / regional hubs that have a dynamic role in leading the communities towards our strategic vision, accompanied by a redistribution of power based on the principle of self-management. These structures are designed both on stated needs and patterns of success based upon the evaluation of existing structures that have proven to be effective in supporting communities.

We must recognize and build on networks that are developing organically and provide them with the necessary resources so that they can evolve and establish themselves within the Wikimedia Movement. We also must identify where a potential structure could support those communities in a very early state. These structures will work toward high standards of diversity, inclusion, accountability and equity in decision-making as per the principles agreed by the Movement.

Even though the concrete functionality of these structures will be decided by communities based on their contexts and needs, we expect that these systems will allow for subsidiarity while ensuring the following functions:
Allocate resources;
Provide legal support and protection when needed;
Coordinate capacity building;
Support organizational growth through tailored advice and peer-support (evaluation, funding, networking, etc.)

We acknowledge that the actual scope of these structures, their governance, evaluation, and the interconnectivity across emergent regional structures can be defined and redefined according to the evolution of needs and potentialities over time.

Participative resource allocation

What It is essential that stakeholders can find a path for financial support to develop capacity, build structures, and contribute to the Movement in an agile and sustainable way. We propose creating a more participatory resource allocation process at a level closer to the stakeholders in order to be able to ensure more equity and relevance to varying contexts.

Why Resources should be allocated in and by the people in each context and be tailored to address the needs of specific recipients. We must provide resources to support capacity building and sustainability to empower our communities.

Altering our systems of allocation will ensure more relevance and, thus, efficient resource distribution will create more local agency and impact. Positive impact on the growth of the communities’ capacities and their sustainability may allow them to be more autonomous and accountable.

How Emergent regional structures/regional hubs will facilitate resource allocation through an approach that is reliable, regular, unrestricted, and resilient, to secure and sustain communities throughout time with multi-year plans. The funding proposals will need to be flexible in terms of length, merge strategy goals of the Movement with local needs and directives, specify mutual accountabilities, and open pathways to local funding initiatives.

Open pathways to power positions

What Establishing systems to resolve conflicts regarding authority and setting clear limitations on powers are key to opening up the Movement to new and more diverse voices, positioning them in decision-making spaces. To build a more equitable Movement, we need to ensure that roles are clearly defined and the access to power is based on capacities and the will to contribute.

We need mechanisms to eliminate conflicts and confusion over our current poorly-defined roles and authority. These structures should guarantee equity in the pathways to power positions in the communities to avoid power concentration in the hands of a few stakeholders.

Why The existing organizational structure is unclear about the interrelated roles and responsibilities between stakeholders, which can lead to confusion over who has the authority to act and causes communication breakdowns. Current power distribution within communities limit access for many parts of the community, especially those that are currently underrepresented. The current structures (or lack of structures) limit not only the possibilities of participating in future positions of power but also the emergence of new leaders.

There are currently no structures that effectively support Movement-wide joint decision-making or define who should intervene in situations involving several parts of the Movement, which leads to unnecessary conflict. Whenever the current power balance is challenged, conflicts emerge to protect existing structures, given the lack of overall guidance to resolve them. Fair and open conflict resolution and power-limiting measures ensure the aim is not to preserve existing power balance at the expense of justice and equity. To be inclusive of future communities, we need mechanisms to achieve the cultural change we want.

How We propose investing in processes and procedures that support the development and participation of people in our projects, provide easily accessible conflict-resolution reporting and support systems, and generate tools and mechanisms for safe selection processes for roles of authority (such as anonymous voting).

By developing documented, easily accessible policies about the responsibilities, accountabilities, and durations of all Movement roles, we will eliminate confusion over who has the authority to take action and establish pathways to working collaboratively and cooperatively. This involves mapping all existing roles and clarifying responsibilities by emphasizing the human interactions between the people involved, rather than simply the tasks they are to perform.

Evaluating whether term limits need to be set regarding various roles in volunteer communities and global/affiliate governance structures might open pathways to new leadership. Term limits could also prevent the burn out of volunteers, attract new voices to leadership positions, limit power appropriation, and encourage participation by a more diverse group of leaders.

Expected outcomes

Establish a Movement Charter to create a common understanding of our shared principles, values, and governance behaviors.
Establish a global Governance Body with an equitable distribution of representatives from throughout the Movement as a basis for facilitating Movement-wide actions and accountability of our inclusive and diverse global strategy.
Create emergent regional structures / regional hubs to establish coordinated, participatory, and context-based resource allocation and capacity building processes, which respect the self-determination of relevant communities, decided upon by the recipients.
Dedicate equitable budgets for community growth, incorporating scoping and direction from the global Governance Body, which will have oversight on targeted goals, for participatory, stable, reliable, unrestricted, and regular fund allocation to allow communities to develop their capacities and activities over a sustained period of time.
Design, actively involve, and inform communities about processes for decision-making regarding equitably allocating resources.
Establish conflict resolution mechanisms at all levels of the Movement.
Evaluate and define Movement roles and responsibilities to bring clarity as to who has authority for action and make clear the pathways for joint decision-making, appeal, and communication.
Evaluate whether anonymous voting and term limits are applicable in meeting contextual needs for both online and offline communities.

Foster and Develop Distributed Leadership

This recommendation proposes the idea of opening pathways for more diversity in those who lead our Movement. ‘Ensure Equity in Decision-Making’ and ‘Invest in Skills Development’ recommendations provide additional clarity on this.

What

In order to “become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge,” as a Movement, we must recognize and invest in current and future leadership development to ensure the Movement’s growth in an equitable and sustainable way across all communities. We envision a Movement built by qualified, well-trained, socially- and technically-skilled individuals from different backgrounds that reflect the diversity of the global communities.

To achieve this goal, we must train, support, and retain Movement leaders who reflect their local communities. Then, we need to actively recruit, encourage, and develop new leaders to ensure diversity and distribution of power in leadership positions. We also need to encourage each community to plan and allocate resources, tools, and information for fostering and developing leadership both at the local and global levels.

Why

Wikimedia leaders, who bring innovative ideas and methods into our systems, can be found across all corners of the globe. Fostering their leadership potential should be encouraged, as it is key for building a Movement that represents global diversity. People who are active participants in various regions know what works best in their socio-economic, political, and cultural contexts and are critical to the development of their communities.

To date, the Movement has not invested in formal training programs to develop leadership. This causes inequity in accessing leadership positions in the Movement and makes it difficult for individuals from underrepresented groups to occupy key strategic decision-making spaces. New leaders bring a healthy rejuvenation to the Movement, prevent the concentration of power in few hands and burn out, and allow our leadership to become more diverse.

How

To invest in and foster the future leadership of the Movement, we recommend an approach based on several actions and requirements. The development of distributed leadership must occur in contexts where stakeholders are responsible for determining the resources and tools needed, as well as for sharing and transferring knowledge and experience within the Movement. Utilizing the principle of subsidiarity, we can forge a diverse network of leaders ready to face both local and global challenges in the Movement. As communities grow more complex, roles and responsibilities emerge, and a leadership development plan becomes necessary. A plan ensures there are pathways for future leaders and proposes methods to identify and promote new generations of leaders. It aims at creating a perspective that fits that particular community, encouraging its self-governance and ensuring self-determination. A leadership development plan should include an outline of roles as well as clarifying term limits and pathways for developing skills and experiences to serve their community and the Movement at large.

Fostering leadership also requires planning resources and bringing in new people that have skills, backgrounds, and experiences that are currently lacking in a particular context. The plan requires encompassing all the types of leadership support such as mentoring, peer-to-peer development, training events, tutorials on a knowledge management platform, etc.

As an additional measure that could work in specific contexts, we envision the incorporation of coaches or trusted advisors, a new concept within the Wikimedia Movement. These would be independent contractors or Movement staff who would assist leaders across communities in identifying their needs and in finding proper ways to address them. They are ideally from within (or have the trust to consult with people from within) the various communities and have an expertise that will assist in obtaining more contextualized development of and participation by community members.

Leadership plans must set methods of ways to bring more diverse types of leadership and propose practical ways of ensuring our Movement’s leaders in all areas represent the diversity of the world’s population. Communities need to be able to receive adequate support and help from well-established structures if they wish to create such a plan, as well as with proper execution of its stipulations.

Expected outcomes

Evaluate necessary leadership skills and create a systematic, globally-coordinated leadership development plan to empower and enrich communities throughout the Movement.
Provide training options at the local level to allow individuals to acquire leadership skills relevant to their communities.
Empower a network of Movement leaders that reflect the diverse communities for which we strive. Individuals from previously underrepresented groups should be actively sought, encouraged, listened to, and supported to move to positions of leadership.
Develop a Movement-wide platform for knowledge management to facilitate the transfer of knowledge concerning leadership at a global and local level.

Invest in Skills Development

This recommendation proposes the idea of prioritizing skill development throughout the Movement. It is supported by the ‘Manage Internal Knowledge’ recommendation.

What

In order to “become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge,” as a Movement, we need to invest in skills development empowering all of our communities to grow equitably, thrive, and continuously adapt to upcoming challenges. To equitably develop around the world, we must reinforce capacities for more offline-focused activities, such as advocacy, partnership-building, fundraising, leadership, and project management.

We must invest in both individuals and partner organizations to develop the indispensable technical skills needed to contribute, as well as people-centered skills, such as communication, conflict resolution, and intercultural dialogue, to enable the cultural change we envision. This requires various methods, among them, a platform that is equitable, transparent, and contextualized, relying on distributed knowledge and expertise.

Why

Currently, training and mentorship are generally inaccessible across the Wikimedia Movement. Our communities struggle to grow and thrive consistently. Newcomers face a steep learning curve and often get discouraged and leave, while seasoned Wikimedians are neither encouraged nor empowered to scale their contributions in the Movement. Stakeholders are frequently isolated, forced to reinvent the wheel instead of accessing, leveraging, and building upon existing capacities. When it does exist, skills development is unevenly distributed, with well-organized, well-resourced projects or groups having greater access to resources than others, and barriers (linguistic, technological, cultural) preventing others from accessing training opportunities and materials.

Because we are planning to build a more distributed organization intentionally, the Movement-wide skills imbalance may risk being amplified, unless investment for skill development and training is designed as a priority from the start. Developing the skills of our communities is a necessary prerequisite to achieving the strategic direction in 2030. We will not be able to reach other goals without them.

How

To equitably invest in skills development for both stakeholders and partner organizations, we recommend an approach based on several actions. We must start by reducing the need for skills development programs through more effectively leveraging the knowledge we already have. This will involve assessing and mapping current skills that are present as well as those that are needed to support the overall needs of the Movement. This can be done by creating more fluid user experiences and enabling easier access to existing information thanks to effective internal knowledge management.

We must build solid learning pathways for individuals and organizations, both online and offline. Online, we should create a coherent and fluid learning experience, preferably through a platform or network of material, offering a wide set of contextualized learning resources about both Wikimedia projects and Movement processes. This includes “learning packs” oriented toward newcomers (individuals, affiliates, or partners), including welcome packs, growth plans, toolkits for them to enter and thrive in our Movement, and delivering skills recognition (eg. through open badges certification) to acknowledge the result of the efforts.

Offline, capacity building should be distributed at all levels (individual, local, regional, global), and include multiple formats (train-trainers programs, training, mentoring, coaching, workshops, clubs, camps, conferences, and hackathons), creating a dense network of peer-support for both individuals and organizations to grow. This will require both local empowerment so that people can decide what is best for themselves, and global coordination and evaluation, so that all stakeholders can learn from each other, continually improve, and be recognized for their expertise through a shared certification system.

For skills development to grow steadily and equitably, it will need solid investment in terms of resources and staff, with a focus on under- and unrepresented communities. We propose support by a dedicated unit, or a coordinated effort from Movement entities’ staff members to work together tightly, keeping subsidiarity in mind as a principle.

Expected outcomes

Create a user-friendly, multi-lingual, multi-formats platform to host training materials, enabling autonomous and self-directed learning, peer-learning, mentoring, and networking.
Design “learning packs” for individuals and organizations joining our Movement to embed skills and knowledge development within all of our practices.
Allocate substantial human and financial resources to skills development to contextualize support with dedicated, coordinated, global, and local staff and partnership programs.
Create a system of skills assessment, mapping available and missing skills, and delivering official skills recognition (e.g., through open badges certification).

Manage Internal Knowledge

This recommendation proposes the idea of placing importance upon curating the internal knowledge of our Movement. It is supported by the recommendations ‘Coordinate Across Stakeholders’ and ‘Invest in Skills Development’.

What

In order to “become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge”, as a Movement, we must make the internal knowledge of the Movement easy to capture, discover, adapt, and consume by all stakeholders to facilitate both individual skill development and growth in an equitable way across all communities.

All the internal knowledge produced in the Movement belongs to it, and we must ensure its findability and usability by any participant. We must establish a knowledge base for internal knowledge, dedicated staff for content curation (including discoverability and quality assurance) and user support, supplemented with a service/database of peers for matchmaking.

Why

Despite our greatest success in creating an open encyclopedia, a knowledge base about everything, we have not been very successful at managing our own operational knowledge. To find information about the Movement, or find support or partnerships, members of our communities, the public, and all our other stakeholders have to navigate multiple disconnected spaces that suffer from poor usability and organization. As a result, if the information is located, it may be inaccurate, outdated, incomplete, or inconsistent without any way of knowing that to be the case.

Even when the information is sound, it is often not easy to use. Hindrances such as a lack of translatability or unspoken assumptions concerning background knowledge or processes that may not be linked hinder the exchange of ideas from within the Movement itself. That results in community members reinventing the wheel and missing the chance to build on each other’s experience, hindering the growth of the Movement and disadvantaging some communities. It also becomes an obstacle to distributing power, as access to the information that helps in doing one’s work better (be that know-how, context for grants, tools, contacts, etc.) establishes another informal power based on recognition.

Managing and documenting knowledge are skills that take time, and doing them is less engaging than doing the work that frequently attracts volunteers to these efforts. As a result, members of the Movement (especially volunteers) often document their activities and knowledge insufficiently or not at all. This leads to a lack of institutional memory, as when they leave the Movement, their undocumented experiences, knowledge, and contacts are lost with them.

Not having a proactive approach towards internal knowledge management results in missing opportunities that affect the entire Movement and puts its growth and risk. It affects both small communities that strive to grow as well as large ones that could be more resilient and flexible. Having good internal knowledge management is essential to onboard new contributors and help them develop their skills, allow new leaders to emerge, and intentionally manage our internal resources that are focused on improving our public projects themselves.

How

To enhance the management of internal knowledge and to make it easy to capture, discover, adapt and consume by all stakeholders, we recommend an approach based on several actions and requirements. We must follow a people-centered approach to design one knowledge-base space that meets the needs of all contributors and stakeholders. This must ensure that our knowledge is findable, easy to use by everyone who needs it for their own activities, while also being easy to add new information and processes as they are developed.

Even though the creation of a common space for internal knowledge is necessary to collect different types of educational resources (from text-based to audiovisual), in a decentralized ecosystem, a single strategy may not be enough. It is necessary to encourage the creation of metadata for every piece of internal knowledge to support its findability through a search tool and various types of syndication. Stored metadata should also support the creation of reports to measure the Movement’s progress accurately, thus creating better awareness and setting informed priorities.

To facilitate the use of internal knowledge resources, they must be accessible through project platforms and allow users to be aware of what exists for them to use and where they can find it. Additionally, there must be active resourcing to ensure contributors are aware of certain internal knowledge needed for specific cases such as the participation in governance (local or global decision-making).

Expected outcomes

Establish a user-friendly, inclusive, functional, participatory, multi-lingual, and searchable knowledge-base system with access to all Movement learning assets.
Make multiple forms of knowledge and how to communicate them accessible and representative of our diverse communities.
Contextualize and communicate internal learning through training by local experts, or cohort-based learning; and supported by integrating with the learning environment.
Provide dedicated staff to assist with content curation, discoverability and quality assurance, user support, and to facilitate peer-to-peer matchmaking.
Facilitate a culture of documentation to be treated as an integral part of Wikimedia’s work and as an outcome in itself by resourcing its creation in key areas, such as capacity building, advocacy, partnerships, and technology.

Coordinate Across Stakeholders

This recommendation proposes the idea of building processes that encourage coordination and implementation of plans and ideas of differing scales for the growth of the Movement. It is supported by the recommendations: ‘Plan Infrastructure Scalability’, ‘Improve User Experience’, ‘Provide for Safety and Security’, ‘Ensure Equity in Decision-Making’, and ‘Evaluate, Iterate, and Adapt’.

What

In order to “become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge,” as a Movement, we must enable coordination among all the various stakeholders to ensure our alignment and to achieve our goals. Coordination is the essential backbone functioning for the Movement we envision.

We must develop a practice of cooperation and collaboration among the different stakeholders to advance towards more equitable decision-making. Coordination must be facilitated by Movement structures, as well as technological solutions and platforms that take into account the different participants’ needs in context and the internal knowledge of the Movement.

Why

The need for coordination was clearly evident during community conversations, as often there is a lack of harmony between the volunteer communities and other parts of the Movement. A lack of clarity about the roles of the various stakeholders, ineffective communication channels, and differing prioritization systems have created points of conflict, perceptions that decision-making has occurred without consultation, and lack of unity of purpose. To ensure equity and access, we need to coordinate among stakeholders to address power imbalances that may facilitate elitism with little to no accountability among/to different Movement participants. We need to be accountable to each other and work together to reach our strategic goals.

Distributed leadership and power structures are key areas for developing and promoting equity in the Movement. This distributed structure comes with an increased need for effective coordination among the various players, to ensure that problems and challenges are solved inclusively and transparently, rather than simply shifted from one area to another. We must have processes and procedures that clearly define our relationships, along with their overlaps, and provide for coordination with efficient communication channels across all levels, particularly in facilitating our response to urgent threats or opportunities.

While coordination is necessary for decision-making, it is also essential for collecting and producing content in each local version of a project and globally. The need for having better mechanisms to put people in touch with similar topical interests is evident at all levels in the Movement and also with external stakeholders, such as partners. This core need will become more relevant as the Movement grows larger and more diverse, and finding solutions to it can have multiplicative effects in the quantity and quality of free knowledge we can create.

How

Coordination can take place between Movement stakeholders, extending to include external partners, who share our goals in the open knowledge Movement. To foster collaboration, we recommend an approach based on several actions to establish a communicative ecosystem: an adequate organizational structure, usable networking and technical solutions/platforms to address stakeholders’ communicative needs, and collaboration with the external knowledge ecosystem.

We must prioritize communication, information exchange, and working together and adopt an organizational structure that has a collaboration function built-in. The structure needs to provide, at all levels, for contextualized thematic/regional discussion and networking, support, planning, research, monitoring, advocacy, capacity building, learning, mentoring, etc. to ensure that our mission/vision remains cohesive. Further structural solutions to align and coordinate the distributed Movement include a Movement Charter and a global Governance Body, which would take on global coordinating efforts that cannot be tackled by emergent regional structures, for example helping set an overarching strategy, as they might have rivaling interests.

We must analyze whether emergent support structures / regional hubs should form a part of the Movement structures to serve as a dispatch and coordination centers for supporting Movement-wide, regional, or thematic focuses and foster better communication and collaboration. Among the thematic units proposed are support structures for advocacy, capacity building, community health, and technology, to ensure that our systems remain current, focus on future development, continuously evaluate requirements and needs in our dynamic environment, and allow our people and technology to be productive assets and relevant in a broad range of contexts.

Open and transparent software projects and functionality proposal processes that allow all stakeholders in the Movement to put forth ideas and a “Technology Council” which coordinates requirements for introducing new functionalities must be prioritized, as should enhancements to our systems to manage our internal knowledge. Improved communication systems to facilitate the exchange of information and collaboration among/by internal and external partners are crucial to remaining efficient, relevant, and sustainable. Finally, we propose collaboration with the external knowledge ecosystem in developing solutions and sharing expertise in both areas where we share common goals and areas which we may need to use but which will not be developed in our Movement.

Expected outcomes

Create living, governance documents defining clear responsibilities and expected capabilities that reflect our common shared values, principles, and accountability to each other and facilitate growth, inclusiveness, and diversity.
Develop a collaboration function that is built-in throughout all Movement organizational structures, making them capable of managing joint decision-making.
Develop emergent support structures, when relevant, as a part of the Movement structures to coordinate support of Movement-wide, regional, or thematic focuses and foster communication and collaboration so our people and technology can be productive assets, relevant in a broad range of contexts, and be sustained.
Design a “Technology Council” which coordinates the requirements for introducing new functionalities in software and invites all stakeholders in the Movement to put forth ideas for new features in an open and transparent software functionalities and projects proposal process.
Enhance communication capacities to enable better management of knowledge, exchange of information, support, and collaboration amongst internal and external partners.

Prioritize Topics for Impact

This recommendation proposes the idea of ascertaining priority regarding topicals needs according to varying contexts. It is supported by the recommendations: ‘Evaluate, Iterate and Adapt’, ‘Promote Sustainability and Resilience’ and ‘Create Cultural Change for Inclusive Communities’.

What

In order to “become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge” and to advance the world equitably, we must consider our great responsibility. As a Movement, we need to conceptualize our content not just in terms of quantity, but also in terms of which kinds may have more useful impact globally.

For this, we must track and understand how we impact knowledge consumers’ lives, prioritize initiatives and areas of content so as to maximize that impact, and build the capability to protect it when necessary. This shift requires a transformation of our culture and practices in the way we evaluate the content and the creation of supporting tools.

Why

Our ultimate reason for curating and sharing knowledge is to empower people to improve their lives. Yet, we do little to understand when and how that happens. Without understanding why people need the knowledge we curate, and how well we are helping them to succeed at those goals, we cannot prioritize how to make our content accessible, understandable, and useful for them. We cannot compare initiatives focusing on different articles or areas of content. But, we know some topics can provide much more personal and societal value to knowledge consumers and are relevant to a much larger audience. We lack the detailed know-how and tooling to prioritize processes for that insight.

A solid understanding of how our content is used and abused, and a willingness to act on it, is necessary for staying relevant in a dynamic technological and social environment, where information is consumed universally, and adversaries ranging from lone spammers to nation-states are interested in distorting it or preventing access. Failure to emphasize our impact and relevance discounts the potential of free knowledge and can have repercussions on the sustainability of the Movement. By ignoring those differences when we prioritize our work, we are not fully recognizing the impact we could have, nor actively managing the responsibility it brings.

How

To prioritize efforts on topics aiming at having an impact on the world, we recommend an approach based on several actions. The evaluation of our impact must include assessment of how well we support knowledge equity so we can focus our efforts on the communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege, and address global challenges (such as those described in the Sustainable Development Goals). At the same time, we must acknowledge the human and financial sustainability of the Movement as a necessary prerequisite to long-term impact (even if priorities differ in the short term). Remembering that we are in it for the long haul, strategic choices that enable or protect future impact must be prioritized over immediate impact.

Furthermore, we need to respect our long-standing principles of welcoming everyone who shares our vision of free knowledge, and their free will to contribute to any topic while respecting content neutrality guidelines. The ability for a participant to bring their knowledge to the world is empowering. We must continue to support editorial control and opening new pathways for all stakeholders to prioritize content according to their specific wants and needs.

To better understand how we empower people to improve their lives, we must invest more into research on how our content gets used (and misused). To be able to evaluate it at scale, we need to build human and technical capacity for measuring impact. That includes measuring the coverage, quality and verifiability of content, detecting threats to it with significant potential for real-world harm (such as misinformation or scams), and measuring the public’s trust in our content and their ability to access and understand it.

Prioritizing topics or content with larger impact requires special focus on certain topics, tracking their completion, dissemination, and impact. For this, we must change our practices and improve metrics, reporting, evaluation, prioritization, advocacy, and partnership practices so that they can help differentiate between different areas of content based on their capacity for world impact. We also need to make sure that our volunteers have the time to work on content by supporting them in administrative and organizational tasks that compete for their free time.

We must identify the high-impact areas where content is missing or insufficient, and look for ways to fill the gaps. This involves community initiatives, outreach, grants and other funding, partnerships, and exploring future technology trends such as artificial intelligence and machine learning. In environments where both editors and content are missing (or content is known to be biased), advocacy and capacity building about content creation and neutral writing must be a priority. Regional support structures could play a pivotal role in this.

Expected outcomes

Conduct research and analysis to provide a clear list of topics that have the greatest impact on the world and on knowledge consumers’ lives.
Establish the tools and know-how necessary for evaluating and tracking content and its potential and actual impact at a detailed level.
Organize discussions to improve our shared understanding among different Movement stakeholders of impact, principles, and the effective ways to measure it.
Assess geopolitical risks which impact our content across different projects to minimize the effects of misinformation.
Support volunteers working on high-impact areas in activities that indirectly affect time dedicated to content generation, such as capacity building and community organization.
Develop processes and relationships to work with specialized partners who can assist in prioritizing topics.

Innovate in Free Knowledge

This recommendation proposes the idea of bringing in new formats, welcoming communities to participate and interact with our projects to expand the scope and outreach of our Movement. The idea of equity is present across most of the recommendations, however the ‘Make a Cultural Change for Inclusive Communities’, ‘Prioritize Topics for Impact’, and ‘Promote Sustainability and Resilience’ recommendations reinforce the arguments laid out for an inclusive, sustainable, supportive and healthy environment across our projects.

What

In order to “become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge,” as a Movement, we need to expand the range of our free knowledge projects constantly. We have no way of knowing if textual, encyclopedic content will continue to be valued and fulfill the needs of knowledge consumers, just as we do not always include the knowledge of some marginalized communities.

By innovating in different content formats and technologies, that are and will be used in the future, along with experimenting with policies for knowledge inclusion, we can create new projects and adapt current ones to encompass content we do not cover yet to stay relevant on the Internet and aim at knowledge equity.

Why

Every free knowledge project is shaped by three characteristics related to a) what is available in terms of free/open policies, b) what kind of knowledge is accepted based on policies (e.g., Neutrality and Notability) and c) how content is created and accessed by users based on the technological interface and storage characteristics. These three characteristics enable and limit the amount of content that any free knowledge project can include.

Wikipedia’s characteristics have produced an encyclopedic, descriptive, and fact-based written knowledge, which has proven to be useful and successful, but it also has (intentionally) limited the content it includes. For example, because of not complying with notability and sourcing policies, some topics regarding under- and unrepresented communities are left out. Also, content such as audiovisual resources is not used in Wikipedia as widely as in other platforms. Finally, there are also many important types of knowledge that are not encyclopedic in nature, yet valuable (e.g., journal articles, tutorials, or genealogies). Therefore, we need to find innovative ways to overcome the limitations of Wikimedia projects in our goals of serving more free knowledge and including forms of knowledge of communities that are currently missing.

How

To innovate in free knowledge and stay relevant on the Internet, both delivering knowledge as a service and aiming at knowledge equity, we recommend an approach based on several actions. Knowledge as a service. To stay relevant, we must be open to innovate and incorporate other kinds of free knowledge, offering projects as well as opportunities to build new functionalities based on our projects, which are interactions with multiple devices around the user and stored as data (audiovisual, textual, and spatial), meta-data, and algorithms. Even if Wikipedia remains relevant as a text-based repository, we have the opportunity to serve knowledge consumers better if we widen our scope and diversify by offering different types of free knowledge. These could include a recombination of audiovisual and textual content, dimensional and geospatial content, augmented reality in context, computer-generated avatars, procedures for the user to test their knowledge acquisition, simulation scenarios, or so-called serious games as new project formats compatible with peer curation workflows.

Knowledge equity. To address the content deficit of under and unrepresented communities, we must recognize that content related to these communities generally lacks the amount or quality sources that the western defined “Notability policy” requires, as they have not held positions of power and could not build the infrastructure to document it by the same methods. Additionally, some knowledge, like oral heritage, is often in unwritten languages. Current technology and bureaucratic processes which hamper new project creation have not enabled creating an encyclopedia entirely/partially based on oral content.

Communities that have unrepresented knowledge in our present platforms should be encouraged to create projects that respond to their needs. They are included in our Movement if they choose to be, and need access to learning and resources, as well as opportunities to network with other communities and pass on their experience and perspectives for the benefit of free knowledge.

In regards to the languages whose knowledge does not have encyclopedic sources, to gather the sum of human knowledge, we require a policy framework to enable collecting it. Regular evaluation of each Wikimedia project is essential on our quest to expand free knowledge, remain relevant, and engage with a wider spectrum of partners and knowledge consumers. Community consultation will also be needed on whether we incorporate content with minimal notability limits as Wikisource, Wikidata, and Commons have done; change the interpretation of the current policies on other platforms; or create new projects based on different notability requirements.

Expected outcomes

Create policies for continual experimentation with projects of various scales, measured by content usability for various audiences and obtaining more equitable coverage of knowledge.
Create spaces for continual experimentation with projects based on multiple types of knowledge, content formats, and devices.

Evaluate, Iterate, and Adapt

This recommendation proposes the idea of underpinning our Movement with continuous processes to analyze our ecosystems, raise awareness on their current state, and plan for our continued growth. It is foundational to all other recommendations, as, without analysis of where we are and how we do things, we cannot adjust and make changes to guarantee our future growth and sustainability.

What

In order to “become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge,” as a Movement, we need to continually evaluate our progress toward our internal and external goals to be able to dynamically iterate, adapt, and upgrade our socio-technical processes and structures. This will allow us to remain flexible in dynamic contexts and to ensure our programs and actions are well-directed and efficient.

We must evaluate all the areas, including content coverage, community and governance diversity and inclusivity, skills development, partnership impact, technology efficiency, and platforms’ usability and accessibility. Results must be widely and clearly communicated across the Movement to increase self-awareness and accountability among all stakeholders, allowing us to adapt our strategies accordingly.

Why

As we are planning to create or reorientate new structures and processes to reach our 2030 goals, we must develop comprehensive methods to evaluate whether the path we are taking is leading us in the right direction. Today, the Wikimedia Movement insufficiently evaluates its contents, programs, and processes, making it difficult to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, preventing stakeholders from advancing towards both efficiency and impact.

To date, efforts to map and build capacity for Movement stakeholders have been ad hoc and un-sustained. The strategic direction requires new thinking, skills, and structures to build evidence-based best practices to document, sustain, and evaluate the progress or failures of programs, including for capacity building and skill development programs, over the long term.

How

To overcome the current barriers to growth, we recommend an approach based on several actions. We must develop methodologies to account for meaningful learning and sharing of experiences across our Movement. These methodologies involve planning, evaluation, dissemination of results, and iterations of processes to improve our Movement direction.

Programmatic and project planning will include systematic evaluation as an integral part of the process, as preconditions to adapting to changing environments, and to the improvement of our overall work. Evaluation needs to be incorporated into decision-making at all institutional levels. Planning for adequate resources, skills development, and capacity needs will be necessary to create meaningful evaluation processes.

The evaluation processes should occur at and across all levels, to verify whether our work is making progress toward achieving our strategic goals. Evaluation processes should also be adapted to the capabilities of the different communities (i.e. not be time-consuming, easy to put in place, supported by resources). This process ends with the dissemination of knowledge. Any evaluation, iteration, and change must be stored in the knowledge management system, accessible and communicated to the entire Movement, in order to raise awareness, amplify its effects, and help others avoid duplication of efforts.

The results from the evaluation must be disseminated and discussed with all involved stakeholders. For example, verifying that an improvement in the registering process/user page creation has increased user retention in a particular language edition must be communicated to the corresponding language community. The results from the evaluation must provide the necessary data to understand the context and elements involved in the system or part of the system examined. Including the people who may benefit from the change that is evaluated, whether it is the current community, new participants, or other groups of users, allows what was learned to be better understood with potentially greater impact within other projects who can learn from and adapt the results. Every evaluation must be adapted to achieve its intended goals.

Expected outcomes

Evaluation:

Establish clear criteria for evaluation based on our goals: impact, inclusive user experience, people-centeredness, and equity to facilitate planning and decision-making at all levels for our growth and sustainability.
Establish mechanisms to clarify mutual accountabilities for any stakeholders within the Wikimedia Movement.

Iteration:

Monitor progress on implementing equity in the Movement by evaluating diversity and newcomer inclusion as fundamentals of participation in the Movement.
Evaluate strategic changes to make sure that both the current communities and future diversity of profiles are always taken into consideration as we implement strategic recommendations.
Provide evaluation with resources and experts in any given area.
Develop a comprehensive evaluation system for capacity building in order to allow stakeholders to understand and value their progress and feel supported in their inclusion.
Iterate processes that propose changes in technology, policies, and governance systems to promote validation through research and testing.

Adaptability:

Adopt policies and procedures based upon evaluations of the changing world and the changing Movement to meet new and altered situations and challenges.
Increase the flexibility and adaptability of the structures and approaches we develop.
Plan, budget, and invest in research to make adjustments as required for improvements, innovations, and impact.

Plan Infrastructure Scalability

This recommendation proposes the idea of planning for infrastructure upscaling on a continuous basis to meet the needs of Movement stakeholders and the goal of sustainability. This is supported by the recommendations ‘Coordinate Across Stakeholders’, ‘Evaluate, Iterate, and Adapt’, Ensure Equity in Decision-Making’, and ‘Innovate in Free Knowledge’.

What

In order to “become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge,” as a Movement, we need to constantly and consistently evaluate, plan and upscale our infrastructure so that all the Movement stakeholders are able to participate. Our infrastructure encompasses the technological platforms and processes for areas such as advocacy, capacity building, or partnerships.

We must create a fluid ecosystem so that our infrastructure serves our needs as we grow. In this sense, to bring about significant change, planning infrastructure scalability requires consideration of risk management and assessment, ensuring inclusive decision-making spaces and enabling coordination, establishing protocols and roles and responsibilities, and investing sufficient resources in implementation.

Why

While the Movement has organically grown in many areas, we must acknowledge the challenges that could bottleneck our plans of achieving the strategic direction. Any structured plan for scalability requires a Movement-wide process to iteratively evaluate the current infrastructure, communicate its needs, and make decisions in order to plan and execute the solutions to prepare for the future.

In a decentralized volunteer-based environment like Wikimedia, communication is probably the most central part of this process to (1) let peers evaluate and express their contribution needs, and (2) to make them aware of the importance of the changes required for scalability. Today many significant changes tend to be entangled and slowed down in a lack of cohesion and expansion capacities that affect the final resulting quality. This lack of coordination is due to the separation between volunteers, technical contributors, and developers in the community and inadequate support and communication capabilities for them to work together.

In addition, the changes needed to modify our systems for scale are often misunderstood or rejected because of insufficient coordination or a lack thereof attributable to inadequate or deficient communication channels. Redressing challenges and reconciliation is often stagnant or progresses upwards at a crawling pace. In addition, lack of training affects our ability to scale utilizing volunteer contributors and partners. Today this results in technical contributors often at their own discretion in terms of maintenance and upgradation of their tools and both users and partners can experience technology (e.g., GLAM tools) as a barrier rather than a bridge.

Even though communication plays an essential role in the upscaling Wikimedia infrastructure, one must also consider the importance of inclusivity in these conversations. Scaling often requires weighing or leveraging for various outcomes, for example, our global goals to give access to knowledge to as many individuals as possible (quantity) may have a different strategic purpose than our goals of being more inclusive and provide beneficial services to under- and unrepresented groups (quality).

Finally, considering the necessity of planning for the evaluation of the infrastructure’s scalability, we must consider the limiting consequences of not adequately allocating resources for risk assessment and implementing adequate solutions. In Wikimedia, this currently happens in a bureaucratic structure that fails to consider variances of scale are important for growth adequately.

How

To ensure that we continually plan for scalability, we propose to iteratively evaluate the current infrastructure, communicate its needs between stakeholders, and make decisions to execute the solutions to prepare for the future. We recommend an approach based on several actions.

We must create dedicated teams or Movement entities to analyze our infrastructures with a focus on optimization and risk assessment to ensure the scalability and sustainability of the Movement. The analysis of our infrastructures must include a complex set of criteria, such as resource distribution and legal protection for handling risk in limited geographies, investment in modern and efficient developer tooling to support community and other developer capacities, cutting-edge technologies to build content partnerships, and decisions on whether platform improvements could come from external sources or partners.

We must ensure that every stakeholder is represented in the decision-making that affects them. We need governance structures that are inclusive, usable, accessible, in a multilingual and friendly environment, which handles disruptions and toxic behavior and adheres to ethical as well as privacy and security protocols. We propose investing in solutions for supporting community discussions and participatory decision-making on technology and systemic enhancements to be fine-tuned by constructive and inclusive debate, as well as consensus-building at scale, taking into consideration the diversity of our communities and those not present in them yet.

We must improve the communication and coordination spaces aimed at different stakeholders as they are essential to continue planning and implementing solutions to improve infrastructure scalability. These spaces need to provide a good user experience to serve users from different cultures and diversities in various ways that they have deemed to meet their needs. We must ensure that our platforms, practices, and policies have better support structures that promote work ease in routine processes and align with modern practices.

To adequately provide structural support in communication and coordination, we need three spaces for different stakeholders involved in the infrastructure planning, development, and use to ensure that they are connected to follow the process of iteratively making the infrastructure scalable. One space (1) for the diverse segments of the Movement that are dealing with key areas for scalability and thus need to be closely coordinated, ie. technology infrastructure, governance, and resource distribution (both with each other and with the communities/partners they serve in order to assess the risk, plan, and generate the solution, make decisions for implementation, and complete the final development); another space (2) for partnerships and people working on specific content areas (GLAM and others) that require specific tools needing updating and upscaling to produce content; and a third space (3) for opening the Movement to include external and third-parties who may use our software to other purposes and expand it with new functionalities and capacities valuable to us. Such third-party partnerships and developers can also support and make way for working on modern technologies, as in Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and others, as deemed necessary. These communication spaces, with clearly defined roles and responsibilities, will also make evident support systems for mentoring and training, as well as organized code review and other processes, such as documentation writing.

We must make all processes regarding infrastructure development transparent to engage more stakeholders in them. This needs to be complemented with an investment in the necessary skills peers require to understand the issues that relate to scalability. Engaging community members in product roadmaps will assist in establishing a wide consensus to meet the goals of our Movement. Transparency and skill development regarding the rationale behind decision-making also offer windows of opportunity to upscale or downscale as per the learning/findings. Such actions would also impact large scale content partnerships, where tools and technological solutions have relied heavily upon the individual mastery of skills.

Expected outcomes

Create dedicated teams or Movement entities to analyze our infrastructures with a focus on optimization and risk assessment to ensure the scalability and sustainability of the Movement.
Create structural support spaces with clear rules of engagement to address the needs in technology, governance, and resource distribution; partnerships and other collaborators; and third-party developers.
Invest in communication solutions and processes to support community discussions, participatory decision-making, and consensus-building at scale.
Adopt a plan delineating roles, responsibilities, and practices to onboard, train, monitor, and retain technical contributors in various capacities.
Design a process to facilitate communication between developers and other technical contributors to network, coordinate innovation, and provide and obtain support, as well as have input on decisions and resource allocations that impact the communities.