North American Hub Research Project/Final report

Overview

In April 2023, Wikimedia DC, with support from Wikimedia NYC, launched a research project designed to determine the feasibility of creating a North American Hub. The hub would be a coalition made up of Wikimedia's North American affiliates, chapters, user groups, and, possibly, individual members. It would provide services and support for North American entities and align with the Movement Strategy 2030 initiatives.

The North American hub research project was funded by WMF’s Movement Strategy Implementation Grants with the expectation that it would address whether and how a hub of this scale could be useful. The project's advisory committee consisted of individuals representing chapter affiliates, user groups, Wikiprojects, and thematic organizations in Canada, the Caribbean, the United States, and Mexico.

Project administrators

Advisory committee

Current landscape of North American affiliates

North American Wikipedia chapter affiliates and user groups often work in parallel. These organizations generally offer local editathons, training, and conferences. They are based and oriented toward some bounded Wikimedia community. Most of them receive Foundation funding, and report annually to the Affiliations Committee. They support networking of Wikimedians. While collaboration occurs naturally among these groups, there is no centralized organization dedicated to serving, supporting, or connecting North American entities doing this work, except for the limited user group focused on the annual conference, WikiConference North America. Potentially if they were organized into a hub, they could do more.

Hubs in other regions around the world are at various stages of development. We interviewed organizers of hubs in central and eastern Europe (CEE), East, South East Asia & the Pacific (ESEAP), and East Africa (EARTH). In parallel with these abbreviations we refer to North America here as NA, and to an envisioned alliance among the North American affiliates as the NAhub.

Project outline

The research phase of the North American Hub research project was designed to determine the need and desire for an organized body that could work with existing North American Wikimedia entities, emerging groups, and individuals looking to connect and contribute to the movement. The goals of the North American Wikimedia hub project research phase were to 1) determine the needs of North American Wikimedia entities and interested parties 2) determine if and how a North American hub can help meet these needs and grow capacities through collaboration, services, and support, and 3) learn how these findings align with the activities of other hubs, chapters, the WMF, and movement strategy activities.

From May 2023 to January 2024, the project team from Wikimedia DC conducted interviews, surveys, and focus group meetings with North America-based Wikimedians. They were associated with existing Wikimedia entities or looking to create entities in the future. The team also interviewed Wikimedians outside of North America who are working to establish hubs in other regions, and staff members from established Wikimedia affiliates with full organizational structures and capacities.

The team met with the advisory committee approximately monthly to report on findings and solicit feedback. The advisory committee members are selected from active participants of chapters, user groups, affiliates, or organizations that could be served by a potential hub. These included representatives from Canada, the Caribbean, Mexico, and the United States.

Scope: Service and support areas

Initial community research

In June of 2023, Peter Meyer and Ariel Cetrone of Wikimedia DC met with Barbara Klen, coordinator of the CEE Hub. The goal of this initial meeting was to learn about the structure, services, and priorities of an established hub. Using findings from the initial conversations with Klen of CEE along with previous organizational knowledge gained as an active Wikimedia chapter, Wikimedia DC developed a survey to help determine the overall desire for, and potential scope of, a North American collaborative hub or hub-like entity.

Surveys

Surveys were first disseminated to members of the advisory committee followed by focus group candidates. This initial effort to poll the community found that most supported the idea of a collaborative North American entity with no objections.

Surveys also found the potential services or areas of support initially shared by CEE to be in alignment with those identified by the NA Wikimedians surveyed. This was the first indication of common need within the movement.

Focus groups

The three main service and support areas identified through the surveys were presented for discussion to North American Wikimedians at four virtual focus groups and one in-person workshop session at WikiConference North America 2023. Suggestions for missing or additional areas were also solicited.

The three core areas, ranked in order of importance or interest based on focus group findings are 1) Community and capacity building, 2) Movement, and 3) Product. Participants were asked to suggest and discuss specific ways that a hub could serve them within these three core areas. The resulting proposed activities and services are shared below. It became evident during all focus groups that North American Wikimedians believe they could most benefit from having access to a hub that prioritizes community and capacity building.

Core service and support areas


1. Community and capacity building	Proposed activities or services	Movement strategy initiative alignment (In addition to 4.26: Regional & thematic hubs)
Programs, events, and initiatives	Small, rapid grants to eliminate the administrative burden often required for small amounts Joint event calendar Relationship-building activities/initiatives with external and internal partners Master North American directory organized by region with a special focus on areas w/o active chapters or user groups Conference support, including potential facilitation of WCNA and smaller regional meetings Support for editing events (admin and financial) Support for outreach initiatives (admin and financial) Coordination with regional, thematic hubs Promotions GLAM outreach coordination Fiscal sponsorship Funding for Wikimedians to attend and present on Wikimedia at external conferences Language revival Incubation of new projects Project management assistance Comments: Support for programs, events and initiatives furthering outreach efforts and subsequent growth for chapters, affiliates, and smaller or emerging communities should be prioritized.	1. Increase the Sustainability of Our Movement 1.1 Systematic approach to improve satisfaction and productivity 1.2 Funding for underrepresented communities 2. Improve User Experience 2.14 Peer spaces 4. Ensure Equity in Decision-Making 4.27 Flexible resource allocation framework 8. Identify Topics for Impact 8.40 Build capacity to improve high-impact content in underrepresented communities
Education	Launch a space to: amplify existing educational resources and organizations host new materials share organizational best practices and engagement models provide K-12 faculty resources Create a network of regional educators Conduct training series for students, teachers trainers, networks Support development of tools to measure time vs. skills learned for event metrics	2. Improve User Experience 2.13 Resources for newcomers 7. Manage Internal Knowledge 7.36 Establish a movement wide knowledge base
Administration	Administrative support for smaller groups or emerging groups Pooled assistance in legal, research, design, taxes, auditing, insurance, public relations, and media Templates for operation Management of funds Alternative fundraising Documentation about events, activities General operating grants Fiscal sponsorship Financial due diligence Payroll Transparency Transition planning Administration of conference Comments: Hub should develop tax expertise Hub capabilities can free Wikimedians to do Wikimedia work and not administration	1. Increase the Sustainability of Our Movement 1.1 Systematic approach to improve satisfaction and productivity
Professional development	Training in: succession planning sustainability technology event planning best practices for boards and organizations GLAMs and partnership development governance taxes public speaking grant writing board management conflict resolution codes of conduct Funding for non-wiki conference travel and registration fees, to support making Wikimedia-related presentations or develop partnerships and networking Could include peer-to-peer opportunities	6. Invest in Skills and Leadership Development 6.32 Global approach for local skill development - gathering data, matching peers, mentorship, recognition 6.34 Skill development infrastructure
Communications	Press releases Media relations Promotions: Events, programs, initiatives, partnerships Directory of NA Wikimedians Comments: Hub messaging may be less restricted than that of WMF	1. Increase the Sustainability of Our Movement 1.3 Increased awareness about the Wikimedia Movement 5. Coordinate Across Stakeholders 5.30 Enhance communication and collaboration capacity with partners and collaborators
2. Movement	Proposed activities or services	Movement strategy initiative alignment
Policy and advocacy (i.e. government, non-wiki)	Provide training and/or recommendations for effectively advocating for the movement in areas such as law and regulation on copyright, privacy, online access, censorship, etc. Centralized toolkit to help advocate for Wiki-friendly policies Could include directory of representatives Past advocacy activity	3. Provide for Safety and Inclusion 3.22 Local capacity development for advocacy
Online safety	Toolkit/shared playbook Match making new or smaller organizations/groups and users with safety experts Planning for incidents like Zoom bombing Safety onboarding for trainers and new users Teachings on cultural context Live support Guidance for sensitive topics (suicide), cultural sensitivities Advice on when to seek outside support for experts of WMF Intermediary for advice and complaints Cybersecurity expertise Directory of experts	3. Provide for Safety and Inclusion 3.18 Code of Conduct 3.19 Private incident reporting 3.20 Healthy community atmosphere
3. Product	Proposed activities or services	Movement strategy initiative alignment
Tools	Tech support for GLAM tools (high priority for NA and other communities) A regional hub product for this would be useful Facilitate technical wishes team Hackathon science fair Photo walks, mobile apps, engagement tools Toolkits for GLAMS Event banners for seasonal multi-local campaigns WikiSalon identifier - Use data from editing to find potential markets for wiki salons/events that have not been previously considered (e.g. edit activity, mass signups, high theme density) Tool promotion, customization Comment: It's most important to support failing GLAM tools, though a hub may not have the capacity to take this on.	2. Improve User Experience 2.16 Cross-project tool development and reuse

Scope: Membership structure

Focus group attendees were asked to discuss hub membership models, e.g. whether user groups or individuals should have to officially join it or pay anything. The consensus was that the membership structure should not be rigid. Chapters, affiliates, user groups, and organizations would be welcome to join the hub as members and benefit from the hub’s services without a formal sign-on process or written commitment. Member affiliations would be public and shared on the project page. Members would also be able to withdraw at any time. Some expressed the opinion that individuals should be welcome to join the hub. This loose structure aligns with that of the CEE hub.

There were varying opinions on a fee requirement for members. Some felt that a fee to join would create a barrier for participation. Others saw a small fee as a statement of support and commitment for the hub. A sliding scale for members was also discussed to a lesser extent.

Scope: Geography

Most who participated in discussions about the geographic scope of the hub did not express concern regarding the geographic scope of a North American hub. During the focus group/workshop at WikiConference North America, limited comments stating that the organization should only serve the United States were shared.

WikiConference North America is a well-attended event with a large existing network. This event and its network of Wikimedians and Wikimedia entities creates a natural audience for the hub. Utilizing existing structures and tapping into the institutional knowledge created by WCNA may help a North American hub launch more effectively than one that includes just on North American country or region.

Scope: Governance

Members of the North American hub research phase committee attended five meetings over the course of the research phase. While decisions about the governance of a potential North American hub will come in the next phase one planning, we hope to emulate the board representation that was accomplished with the advisory committee. A board, or initial planning committee, will determine the governance structure for a North American hub.

Wikimedia hubs and large chapter affiliates, background and alignment

Wikimedia DC interviewed hub and chapter organizers, met with WMF staff, and reviewed movement strategy discussions and some hub research proposals. We expect North American Wikimedia organizations, including the hub, to follow patterns established by others in the movement where possible, guided by specific opportunities and feedback from Wikimedians within its region.

Wikimedia DC interviewed hub organizers from CEE, ESEAP, and EARTH to learn about their hub models and experiences. These hubs are at varying stages of development. They have loose regional support networks and non-rigid membership requirements. In their own research, most found that their communities were seeking support, both financially and programmatically, as well as assistance with event planning (edit-a-thons, conferences) and collaborative initiatives. The North American hub team found this to match the findings in their own service area.

The CEE hub is furthest along, and has elected representatives from its region who have authority over the hub’s actions, budget, and its staff of two people. Formal governance procedures for the other hubs had not been established at the time of the interviews. The CEE effort builds on a series of regional conferences which participants recalled as successful and encouraging. A major challenge is that regional Wikimedians work and communicate in more than 30 different languages. The conferences and the hub links can reduce the isolation of those working in small languages or small jurisdictions.

The ESEAP group has ongoing conferences and meetings. Their region has the extraordinary challenge of 40 working languages. As of April 2024 they have drafted a charter for the hub and they plan to have a ratification process. It proposes a Congress with many representatives of groups, and then an executive Council elected or selected from those elected to the Congress. A substantial section of the draft charter addresses financial management; the authors anticipate that the hub itself will have substantial assets and issue substantial financial reports. In many of the ESEAP countries there is not likely to be a chapter so the Hub needs to have the capacity to receive official grants.

The EARTH group anticipates covering 8-11 countries in East Africa. The user groups in this area are often represented at the Wiki Indaba conferences. One area of commonality is that most of these countries have Swahili speakers. The user groups in Uganda has taken a leadership role. The affiliates in this region are user groups, not formal nonprofits (chapters) so they cannot receive funds from WMF grants very effectively. It is expected that the new EARTH hub would be a formal nonprofit, which would be able to receive grant money and distribute it to activities across the region. This is a difference from other hubs, which are not formal organizations with bank accounts.

An extensive 2021 report by Anass Sedrati addressed community reflections on a possible Arabic-language hub, or a regional hub for Western Asia or the MENA region. The author drew from 78 responses to surveys, interviews, and a social media post. The resulting report conveys a rich and diverse set of responses to the prospect. Most respondents did want a hub, and an Arabic-language thematic hub was generally of more interest to respondents than a regional hub. Arabic is an official language in 22 countries, and 8 countries had Wikimedia user groups as of the time of the report. Turkish/Turkic and Farsi language communities were large and distinct, and would probably not be central to this imagined hub. Several respondents envisioned a hub as having a physical office presence and WMF employees, partly because the WMF is otherwise not very visible in their region. There were a variety of views about to whom the hub should report and how it would be held accountable; one view was that it should report to the WMF, or even be part of it and staffed by employees of the WMF. The purposes of the hub would be coordination and communication and community support. Most respondents expected the hub to have staff, and to be involved in organizing WikiArabia conferences. The challenges to Wikimedian cooperation in the Arabic-speaking-regions were described as extensive: wars in the region; electricity not available everywhere; COVID-19 at the time; and many disconnected potential community members lacking the background to communicate well with the WMF or make plans together. The hub would be a source of coordination, training, and job opportunities. It would help connected isolated Wikimedians. It could impartial and accurate regarding sensitive issues. It could help get access to scientific, historical, and archaeological resources, and GLAMs in the region. The hub would be a welcoming place. It would be governed by a board with representatives from several countries. Respondents had different views as to whether it would have individual members or only affiliate group members. In interviews, most thought the existing user groups would report into the hub, which would manage relations with the WMF. (Sources: Anass Sedrati, 2021, Regional Hubs Draft Plan, on meta; and slides from a presentation at Wiki Indaba 2021; our notes are on Wikispore.org).

We can learn from this, recognizing that the North American situation has a different and simpler context than the Arabic/MENA one. We have much of the WMF here, and do not need to arrange for it to have a greater local presence; we have fewer languages, and fewer jurisdictional, political, and religious differences and tensions; and the North American Wikimedians have more experienced and have been somewhat more organized together. Respondents in NA tended to think of the hub as useful to serve the local affiliates and Wikimedians, not to report to the WMF mainly except insofar as it used WMF funds, resources, and authority.

We spoke also with representatives from large affiliates WMUK and WMEU. They are not hubs but they offer larger scale services and activities than any North American chapter. The purpose of these conversations was to learn about organizations that are staffed and funded on a larger scale than other chapters.

WMUK is a large formally organized chapter, focused on programs and projects in the United Kingdom. They focus on connecting with institutional partners and building long-term relationships through GLAM and other initiatives. WMUK has ongoing connections to Wikimedians-in-Residence and sponsors of WiR positions in its region. At the time of the discussion, WMUK had a staff of 16, most addressing programs and partnerships. Other European chapters have substantial staff and WiR relationships (WMIT, WMSE, and WMPL among others).

WMEU is an advocacy organization in Brussels representing Wikimedia organizations in the EU. It is not called a hub or a chapter, but similarly it represents movement organizations. It is focused on policy and advocacy, and may be involved in fundraising as Wikimedia efforts can apply for EU funding. They may support capacity-building activities at some point, but do not see themselves as a service center. WMEU had a staff of two and expected to grow.

Like these other groups, a North American hub can build on its past conferences which lift morale and build connections across the region. The frictions of multi-lingualism are important in North America but are overall less severe than in the other regions. The North American region, unlike the others, has a high WMF presence and so does not apparently require an analogue to the WMEU.

Recommendations

The Wikimedia North America research team recommends moving forward with a hub that serves Canada, Mexico, The Caribbean, and the United States. It also encourages a measured approach that will slowly and effectively build the hub so that it becomes a trustworthy source of services for Wikimedia communities. This can accomplished by establishing a minimal system of governance, building a temporary organizational structure, and prioritizing achievable, first-phase activities that will support Core areas #1: Community and capacity building. The remaining core areas will be addressed as the hub moves forward.

The hub would support, but not govern, other entities. There would be no fee to become a member of the hub in its first year. The hub can operate under the banner of the WikiConference North America user group to start with. This user group would expand its present annual affiliate reporting, which presently only covers the annual North American conference, to add a summary of its other activities and a financial summary of its resources which are held by its fiscal sponsors or at the Foundation. We have made the assumption that a user groups or chapter may affiliate itself with multiple hubs.

The North American hub would be formed as a coalition of Wikimedia affiliates (chapters and user groups) who agree to a statement on meta with a few key ingredients. Each group would agree to something like these elements:

Their group will support and work with the other NAhub groups on projects under an initial umbrella name (presumably WikiConference North America)
Their group will host events, activities, or services open to North American Wikimedians generally, at least once a year
Their group can say such events are held on behalf of in concert with of the North American hub
New groups can join the hub.
By a majority vote, existing members may prevent the use of the hub name or resources for a particular project, or prevent other groups from joining

To launch the hub we anticipate perhaps 6-12 user groups from multiple countries agreeing to the statement, each one following its own governance process. We would verify that the statement suits WMF in terms of movement strategy and language. We would set up the first projects, and schedule a date and perhaps an online launch event to declare that the hub exists. We will work with others to find a consensus phrasing of the agreement before asking groups to sign on.

At some future time individual members may be able to join the hub directly. They can sign on at the bottom of this report to support its recommendations. We anticipate the launch to be framed around a critical mass of existing affiliates, not individuals. Decisions about any fees for membership and any upgrading or renaming of the user group would be made by these affiliate members together after the hub starts up.

We recommend that an early activity of the hub be a small grants program offering quick support to small events and projects held by individuals or user groups throughout the North American region. We do not anticipate the hub being a source of funds or control over funds for North American chapters directly; their funding comes from the WMF, and they deliver annual financial reports to the WMF. The small grants program would have less intense requirements on applicants.

Implementation plan

This plan addresses the initial rollout period for the establishment of a North American hub. It prioritizes governance, structure, sustainability, and planning as well as a selection of first-phase, community-focused activities/action items that can be taken on during the hub’s earliest stages. These activities/action items are in direct response to community feedback shared in Core area #1: Community and capacity building. Other core service areas will be planned for and addressed as the hub formalizes.


First phase	Goal	Activities/Action items
Governance, structure and funding	Formalize the hub	Invite existing North American chapters and user groups to support/endorse the hub in concept and in practice.
	Support the hub’s first-phase activities	Apply for WMF movement strategy funding to cover administrative costs. Wikimedia DC or NYC to serve as fiscal agent.
	Prioritize governance	Establish a committee with an eye towards a formal board. Approach existing planning committee members and others. Wikimedia DC will coordinate.
	Establish organizational structure	Engage (possibly) temporary program coordinators and establish roles for contributors and members. Determine organizational structure, e.g. will a hub become part of the WikiConference North America user group or begin as its one user group
	First phase	Goal	Activities/Action items
Hub launch: Immediate first-phase priorities	Demonstrate value and provide financial support (with limited barriers or red tape) for relevant work, initiatives, etc. Core area #1	Launch a small/rapid grant program to support existing and emerging North American entities. This will also help grow the directory of potential members for the hub. Sample projects: Events (edit-a-thons, meetings, initiatives), creative approaches to capacity growth, professional development, education, etc.
	Share information and resources, centrally Core area #1	Build the hub’s main meta page. This wIll include grant news, NA-wide events calendar, an education page and the beginnings of a directory.
	Sustainability	Develop plan for fund development
	Support existing, effective, long-term efforts in the NA community Core area #1	Provide support Wikiconference North America
	Encourage buy-in	Create plan for membership growth
	Plan from transparent and accessible communication	Design communication plan and establish procedures for hub news and services in English, Spanish, and French
	Prioritize learning and knowledge growth within the movement Core area #1	Launch educational sessions and series, including professional development opportunities (public speaking, courses for effective training, etc.)
	Improve visibility and knowledge of the hub	Plan series of small/medium events (Wikifest), low pressure gatherings 4 times per year
	Brand awareness	Design logo
	Expansion	Create plan for rollout of services from Core areas #2 and #3. Prioritize controlled, realistic growth and continued community feedback or changing landscapes.

Statements of community support

We invite members of the North American Wikimedia community to sign below to show support for the establishment of a North American hub. Comments also welcome. Please include affiliation is applicable.

Ariel Cetrone (WMDC) (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jmabel (talk) (Cascadia Wikimidians, Commons & en-wiki admin) - 21:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen Brown of the Wikimedians of Colorado User Group and the Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West - 17:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Louis Germain (WMCA) (Wikimedia Canada) (talk) 13:21, 03 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
–SJ talk 13:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC) ![reply]