An adaptation of Polis for the Wikimedia ecosystem, currently a live prototype. This post continues after ‘We need to innovate with Wikimedia decision-making‘. This prototype is part of the Next25 initiative attempt to arrive at more constructive attitude towards decision making.
We have a lot of decisions to make in the next year in our movement. As the number of visitors to Wikipedia is dropping, the internet around us is changing rapidly. This means that as a movement, we will have some hard decisions to make where we go. As WMF Executive Director Bernadette Meehan summarized: we need to evolve, but in ways that strengthen our mission.
As I laid out in my last post, we need better processes to make decisions than the Request for Comments. This is true for deciding on our outdated policies in our many communities (how do we welcome new contributors, how do we handle AI, what is the bureaucracy that we can handle as a less-active community?) and on directions for our movement (what should be our priorities? Are there opportunities for new projects? What technology should we develop, and what should it look like?).
Today, I would like to introduce one prototype that could play a role in a more constructive approach to making decisions.
Often, our current mechanisms focus on a single, large-form proposal, bringing out our critical thinking. There are many ways to improve our decision making, and I would like to see this as a part of a larger effort to experiment with that. Don’t assume that a single process can serve is in every decision, but rather pick the tool that fits the task.
In my last post, I outlined some recommendations for how we could improve our processes. None of this is hypothetical. The civic-tech world has spent the last decade building and testing exactly these ideas — most famously in Taiwan, where the vTaiwan process used a tool called Polis to find unexpected common ground on regulating Uber.
How it works
This brings me to the prototype we have been working on: Proto, an adaptation of Polis for the Wikimedia ecosystem, running on Toolforge with your regular Wikimedia login. Polis (for example: pol.is) is a well-known innovation that has been used in many citizen engagements, including vTaiwan. We have built on top of it to make it fit a wiki’s needs better: to be more encouraging about editing the statements, and to add argument mapping.
The process consists of three phases:
Respond to atomic statements and find the statements that the community already agrees on, and the ones that divide.
Collect relevant arguments for the most important statements.
Collect an informed opinion mapping by showing the most important statements with their selected arguments.
The workflow behind Proto
Separate the phases
A system like Proto can be used to collect valuable input on a complex topic, before solidifying a draft. The phase separation gives ideation, refinement, and preference measurement each their own home. With the outcomes of this process, you could organize a more informed voting process on-wiki.
Make participation accessible (atomic statements)
The core mechanic is deliberately simple. A conversation (for example, a new policy dealing with blocking temporary accounts) starts with a question and a set of short, atomic statements — one claim each (“A temporary account should be warned at least once before being blocked for vandalism”).
The basic principle behind Proto is atomic statements that participants can agree or disagree with. Because Wikimedia, you can also suggest a different wording for the same statement.
Participants respond agree, disagree, or pass on each statement, and can submit statements of their own: to improve the phrasing of existing statements, or to fill a gap. That’s the whole interaction: no threads, no replies, no walls of text to catch up on. Joining a conversation on day twelve is exactly as easy as joining on day one; if you return later, you simply weigh in on whatever new statements have appeared since. Rapid responding make it easier to participate.
Notably, the same design serves both ends of the scale: a small group gets an honest reading of the people it could never get to write talk page comments, while a large wiki gets a way to digest thousands of voices that no closer could. And the process is composable — an organizer can stop after the opinion mapping and already walk away with something valuable.
(A practical challenge will be how to connect the process to the wiki – notifications and talk page messages are likely the best bet.)
Decouple opinions from identity
Behind the scenes, the responses build an opinion map. Statistical clustering reveals the groups of participants who tend to respond alike — and, more importantly, the statements that are supported across those groups. Instead of amplifying the sharpest disagreement the way a threaded discussion does, the system is designed to surface hidden consensus.
Your response is private while the conversation runs; opinions become visible as clusters, not as named individuals to follow or oppose. A faction that shows up to swing the outcome doesn’t silently shift a headcount — it appears on the map as exactly what it is. Private responses remove herding and anchoring — and let people disagree with the regulars without it becoming personal.
Collect the arguments
In the argument phase, participants can add arguments to both sides of the statement. These arguments are then displayed in an (optional) later ‘informed vote’.
Where Proto goes beyond standard Polis is in what happens after the opinion mapping. The organizer can curate a small set of the most informative statements — the points of strong consensus and the genuine fault lines — and open an argument layer: participants write and rank short pro and con arguments for each featured statement. No threading here either; just the community’s best reasoning on both sides, sorted by usefulness.
And as an optional final phase, an informed opinion poll: a fresh round on just the featured statements, with the strongest arguments displayed alongside. Comparing the before and after even lets us see whether exposure to arguments actually changed minds — something our current processes are incapable of measuring. Rather than just focusing on whether we like the proposal, consider also what others might think of as relevant arguments.
One thing Proto deliberately is not: a vote. While everything may feel like voting, it is much more about mapping where the agreement and disagreement are, and collecting arguments in an equitable manner. From there, we have a solid foundation to draft policies from, and to figure out how to compromise between the views on the table. It may also expose where more conversation is needed, and where we already agree and only a vocal minority pushes back. The report from the tool is meant to inform the final step of the policy process on-wiki — because at that point, a Request for Comments or an opinion poll may actually make sense.
An invitation
This is one way of doing consent-building differently, but the underlying principles stay the same. I would invite you to try it, and to think about it from a constructive perspective: how would you improve it? Let us know, on metawiki.
The prototype is live at proto.wiki , and what it needs now is reality: some groups willing to run a real consultation on a real question. If your wiki, WikiProject, or group has a policy discussion that has been stuck for years — and whose hasn’t? — I would love to talk.
Twenty-five years ago we built an encyclopedia. I refuse to believe that the way we made decisions in 2004 is the best we can do in 2026. The editors who join us next year deserve rules they can actually read, trust — and change.
Meetups (Kopdar) are always highly anticipated moments for Wikimedia volunteers. Aside from being a space to connect, meetups often spark extraordinary collaborations. Not too long ago, I had the opportunity to participate in a very unique meetup event titled WikiRempah in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia on Sunday, August 9, 2026.
True to its name, this event highlighted the richness of spices and culture, but with an interesting cross-cultural twist: we documented the culinary and cultural heritage of Eastern Indonesia, yet channeled it into Sundanese-language Wikimedia projects and other global platforms. This activity was not just about editing; it was a contribution marathon involving four Wikimedia projects simultaneously.
Crafting Recipes and Visualizing Flavors
The first session, which was highly memorable for me, was culinary documentation. Eastern Indonesian cuisine, famous for its rich herbs and spices, was the main star. We went to an authentic Eastern Indonesian restaurant, photographed, and documented these signature dishes, then uploaded the best visuals to the Wikimedia Commons repository so they could be freely used by anyone. One example I uploaded was a photo of a Ayam Woku Khas Sulawesi.
We then moved on to the Sundanese Wikibooks project, which is currently still in the incubator. There, we worked together to write down these authentic Eastern recipes in Sundanese. Translating the spice measurements, cooking methods, and ingredient names into our mother tongue offered a unique sensation, as if we were serving Eastern Indonesian flavors right in the kitchens of the Sundanese people. On that occasion, I tried writing down the recipe for grilled skipjack tuna (ikan cakalang bakar).
Bridging Cultural Heritage to the Sundanese Wikipedia
After being satisfied with crafting recipes, the meetup’s focus shifted from the dining table to historical sites. Eastern Indonesia has an abundance of cultural heritage sites whose histories are vital to the civilization of the archipelago. Unfortunately, information regarding these sites is still very minimal, especially in regional languages.
This is where we contributed through the Sundanese Wikipedia. We wrote and expanded new articles discussing cultural heritage in the eastern part of Indonesia. Writing about geographically distant topics in Sundanese is a tangible manifestation of Wikimedia’s mission: freeing knowledge for everyone, in the language closest to them. I wrote several titles, including Bénténg Middelburg (Middelburg Fort), Bénténg Amsterdam (Amsterdam Fort), and Bénténg Barneveld (Barneveld Fort).
Bringing the Dictionary to Life with the Sounds of Spices
The highlight of this WikiRempah Meetup, and in my opinion the most interactive activity, was the voice recording session. Since the overarching theme was “Spices,” we compiled a long list of vocabulary related to spices and typical Indonesian cooking ingredients.
Using the Lingua Libre software, we took turns recording the pronunciation of this spice vocabulary one by one. The atmosphere became very lively and fun as we had to ensure our Sundanese articulation sounded clear and precise. After the recording process was complete, the audio files were not just left there. We immediately embedded them into the existing entries in the Sundanese Wiktionary.
Now, the digital dictionary does not only present text but also “speaks.” Anyone looking for entries about spices in the Sundanese Wiktionary can instantly hear how the word is pronounced orally by a native speaker. Some of the recorded words included lauk (fish), sagu (sago), and sampeu (cassava).
Participating in the WikiRempah Meetup gave me a new perspective on how the Wikimedia ecosystem works. From a culinary dish and a historical story, we could unpack them into photos on Wikimedia Commons, recipes on Wikibooks, encyclopedic articles on Wikipedia, to audio pronunciation recordings on Wiktionary and Lingua Libre.
This activity proves that contributing to the Wikimedia movement is never boring. There is always room for creativity, cross-cultural collaboration, and new ways to preserve the richness of the archipelago in the digital realm. Endless thanks to the organizing committee for this incredibly valuable and memorable opportunity. My hope is that a multi-contribution meetup model like WikiRempah can inspire other communities to keep exploring!
My Wikimedia activities mainly focus on edits and corrections to Wikipedia pages related to my area of interest, adding cited informations, photography, Commons, youth-related projects, and topics related to music and culture.
In this report, I will share my experiences, observations, and highlights from Wikimania 2026. I will also describe the events I enjoyed the most during the conference.
Wikimania 2026 in Paris was my first Wikimania. I had attended other Wikimedia events before, but this was my first time experiencing Wikimania itself. During the conference, I joined sessions related to my interests, volunteered as a photographer at some activities, met new people and spent time again with friends I already knew from the CEE community. Some of the sessions also gave me new ideas about how I want to contribute in the future, especially through photography, youth activities and music.
The time between sessions was also an important part of the conference for me. During coffee breaks, meals and while moving around the venue, I met Wikimedians from many different countries and had conversations that I probably would not have had through scheduled sessions alone.
And of course there was also no shortage of small things to bring home. I collected stickers, pens, postcards, badges, notepads and other materials from different Wikimedia communities and projects, along with considerably less permanent souvenirs in the form of snacks and food. I kept some of these for myself, but I also plan to use many of the printed materials, stickers, and other items as materials for events we organize in the future. They can help me create a more visual stand where people can see different Wikimedia communities, projects and events instead of only hearing about them.
During Wikimania, I moved between many different sessions and activities. Sometimes I stayed until the end of a session, while at other times I left to see something else. Below are the sessions that I enjoyed the most or that gave me ideas about things I may want to work on in the future.
The discussion focused on how different Wikipedia communities are dealing with generative AI. Matthias Schindler shared an example about a tool made to check ISBN numbers in Wikipedia references. The tool helped identify articles containing fake references generated by AI. Some of the text looked normal, but the books used as sources did not actually exist.
The speakers also discussed how language communities can experience AI differently. One point I found interesting was that language models can flatten different perspectives instead of understanding the context of each language and community. The discussion was not simply about accepting or rejecting AI. It was also about understanding where these tools fail and keeping human review in the process.
If AI becomes the first web interface – Wikimania 2026 Piyanist | CC BY-SA 4.0
He demonstrated how a language model can make a basic mistake while still producing something that looks technically convincing. In one example, a model trying to find female physicists who had won the Nobel Prize in Physics initially selected the QID of a dog breed instead of the Nobel Prize.
The workflow presented in the session separated discovery, structure inspection, SPARQL generation and validation. This made it easier to see where a mistake happened instead of only looking at the final answer.
Later, I attended the opening ceremony, which also celebrated Wikipedia’s 25th anniversary.
UNESCO’s Mariya Gabriel spoke about knowledge as a public good and about the responsibility of AI systems that depend on open knowledge. Wikimedia Foundation CEO Bernadette Meehan talked about the people behind Wikimedia. She reminded us that readers normally only see the finished article. They do not see all the discussions, photos, translations, corrections and other work that happens behind it.
Jimmy Wales talked about assuming good faith and making newcomers feel welcome. He also spoke about freedom, equity and the importance of keeping Wikipedia reliable. He also discussed misinformation bubbles and unequal access to information. One point that stayed with me was his description of Wikipedia’s role in the age of AI: its value is not simply providing the fastest answer, but providing information that can be checked and verified.
He also described Wikipedia as something built gradually through edits, lines of code and discussions rather than around one person.
The ceremony continued with the Wikimedian of the Year awards. I photographed all of the award recipients and later uploaded my photographs to Wikimedia Commons. You can access these photos from the following Commons category
Wikimedians of the Year 2026 Wikimania 2026 Piyanist | CC BY-SA 4.0
A morning inside the Sainte-Geneviève Library
The next morning, I joined an organised visit to the Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève.
We met at the Wikimania venue early in the morning, received public transport tickets and travelled to the library together. Before entering, I walked around the Panthéon area with other photographers and took street and architectural photographs.
Fontaine des Bois, Parcs et Jardins. 2026 Wikimania Paris Day 2. En route to Bibliotheque Sainte Genevieve Vysotsky | CC-BY-SA-4.0
Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, Paris Piyanist | CC BY-SA 4.0
Inside the library, we visited the main reading room as well as storage and archive areas normally closed to the public. In the reading room, Pauline Rivière showed us the old book lift: a big wheel and rope system that once carried books up from the storage in a small box. She told us that the architect did not want staff walking around the reading room, because he found it not aesthetic, so the librarians asked the minister for extra stairs to make their work easier. In the storage areas, the books are shelved in little “waves”, so that small books do not get lost between two big ones. The old card catalogues are also still in use, because some records are not in the online catalogue. One massive old door even hides its lock; only a small trick of the architect opens it.
In the lower levels, we saw large collections of books, archive materials and older reproduction formats. Pauline showed us the microfilm archive: before digitisation, books and newspapers were copied on small reels, and readers can still use them today. She also explained how physical collections are digitised and made available through the Genovefa digital library. The library holds around two million documents in three buildings. When a reader requests a book, the request is printed in the stacks and the book is sent up with a small lift, in about twenty minutes. The rolling shelves stay only on the lowest level, because anywhere else their weight would harm the foundations of the building.
We also saw historical documents, rare books and materials connected to preservation and digitisation. For me, the most impressive piece was a planetary clock made in southern Germany at the end of the 16th century – one of the very few surviving in the world, and still working, showing the movements of the planets. The photos I took of the library and the archive area during these events are in this Commons category.
Pauline Rivière explained how physical collections are digitised and made available through the Genovefa digital library. We also saw historical documents, rare books and materials connected to preservation and digitisation.
Photo: Microfilm boxes of the French news magazine L’Express (1996–2014) in the microfilm storage of the Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, Paris, during a Wikimania 2026 guided visit. Piyanist | CC BY-SA 4.0
The problem behind WikiPortraits is simple: many Wikipedia biographies still have missing or poor photographs, but taking a good photograph of a notable person often requires being at the right event and having media access. WikiPortraits helps photographers attend and cover these kinds of events, so that useful photographs can later be uploaded under free licences and used across Wikimedia projects.
WikiPortraits now has more than 200 photographers from over 40 countries, and together they have uploaded more than 95,000 photographs. The group covered over 180 events in 2025, and another 169 events had already been covered in 2026 by the time Wikimania took place. These photographs are also widely used, receiving around 400 to 500 million views every month.
One part of the model was especially relevant to me. WikiPortraits encourages photographers to begin with events in their own area. As they build experience and a portfolio of Wikimedia work, the group can help with accreditation for larger international events. For some major coverage, there can also be support with travel or accommodation.
This connected closely with my own photography work. In Türkiye, I already photograph musicians, artists, concerts and other events. Until now, these photographs were usually produced for artists, organisers or their own media use, and I had not really connected this part of my photography with Wikimedia Commons.
The session made that connection much clearer for me. When licensing and other conditions are suitable, I hope to make some of my future artist and concert photography useful on Commons as well.
For me, this is a practical way to connect photography work I already do with my Wikimedia activities instead of treating them as completely separate things.
And after that session, I joined WikiPortraits. For me, this was one of the sessions I enjoyed most at Wikimania 2026.
The panel discussed Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property and Indigenous Data Sovereignty. The speakers explained why open knowledge is not only about copyright or whether something can technically be uploaded.
Cultural context, consent and the communities connected to that knowledge also matter.
The Wikimedia Australia team presented a guide that helps contributors think about culturally sensitive material and whether a source is culturally appropriate. One of the practical ideas was to ask not only whether material can be uploaded, but whether uploading it is the responsible choice.
Thérèse Ottawa also spoke about the Atikamekw-language Wikipedia project in Canada and its connection with education and language revitalisation. The project included work with younger people and schools, helping the language remain active in a digital environment.
This session connected with what I had seen at the library. Digitising cultural material can help more people access it, but we also need to think about how that material is shared.
Respecting Indigenous Knowledge in Open Spaces Piyanist | CC-BY-SA-4.0
CEE Youth and ideas for future activities
Youth participation was another part of my Wikimania programme.
One example I liked was the use of simple social activities such as board game meetings. These meetings helped young Wikimedians get to know each other, and some later developed projects together. The discussion also looked at the role of regional groups in connecting young people who may otherwise feel isolated in their local Wikimedia community.
Later, I joined the CEE Youth session and workshop.
The CEE Youth social media working group currently has eight volunteers from different countries. The team meets once a month, talks through Telegram and works with a shared content calendar. The speakers were also quite open about volunteer burnout. Sometimes volunteers simply need to take a break from their responsibilities for some time.
During the workshop, we talked about who we actually want to reach through social media and what could make the content more interesting. We also discussed how the work could be divided between more people instead of relying too much on one person.
CEE Youth Group workshop KGruszczyk-CEEhub | CC-BY-4.0
We talked with Lukas about music at Wikimedia events and possible future collaborations. I had discovered the information about the closing choir late, but after our conversation Lukas invited me to join.
The session explained how work around Balinese manuscripts developed through local community participation and wider partnerships. The discussion was not only about scanning documents. It also focused on trust, local leadership and giving communities a role in decisions about their own cultural heritage.
For me, this connected naturally with both the Sainte-Geneviève Library visit and the Indigenous knowledge panel. All three showed different sides of digitisation and cultural heritage.
After the session, I studied the score for “Oh, Wikipédia!” and joined the WikiOrchestra and choir rehearsal. I spent hours working on the music, pronunciation, stage positions and performance.
Near the end of the closing ceremony, the WikiOrchestra and choir went on stage and we performed the song together.
Performing with the choir at the main amphitheater stage, became one of the most memorable parts of my first Wikimania.
Lukas and I also talked about future music projects. I also plan to continue composing original music for Wikimedia events when there is an opportunity. For me, music is not only something separate from Wikimedia activities.
WikiOrchstra at Wikimania 2026 BugWarp | CC-BY-SA-4.0
After the ceremony, we joined the Wikimania 2026 group photo.
Wikimania Day 4 group photo with the Giant Wikipedia Puzzle Simon Delahaye | CC-BY-SA-4.0
On the final day of Wikimania, there was another very literal example of how many small contributions can create something much larger. Wikimania participants worked together on a giant version of the Wikipedia Puzzle Globe outside the venue. When it was finished, the puzzle covered around 100 square metres and had 944 pieces. It was one of the largest jigsaw puzzles ever assembled in France. It later became the backdrop for the final group photo.
I also kept one of the puzzle pieces as a souvenir. Together with the badges, postcards, stickers and other things I collected during the week, it will probably become one of the more unusual pieces of my future student club stand.
The giant Wikipedia jigsaw puzzle at Wikimania 2026 in Paris, France Manfred Werner (WMAT) | CC-BY-SA-4.0
Looking back at my first Wikimania
My first Wikimania included discussions about AI, photography, cultural heritage, youth activities and music.
But the experience was not limited to the sessions. Meeting Wikimedians from different countries during breaks, seeing the projects people brought with them and simply spending time with other contributors were also important parts of the week.
I returned from Paris with several ideas for what I want to do next, like connect more of my photography with Wikimedia Commons and WikiPortraits, become more active in CEE Youth and youth-related activities, and continue exploring ways to bring music into Wikimedia events.
I also want to continue contributing to the topics I already edit while trying these different forms of participation.
One useful part of Wikimania for me was seeing that some of the things I already do outside Wikimedia can also become Wikimedia contributions.
The week ended with the group photo, the giant Puzzle Globe (Of course, I took one puzzle piece with me.) and the memories and small objects I brought home from Paris. It was a memorable end to my first Wikimania.
On 2 September 2026, the new Wikimedia CEE Hub Steering Committee began its term, following several months of nominations, eligibility checks, community engagement and voting. Eight members were elected: four by individual community members and four by CEE affiliates, and two more were later co-opted.
But this election was also a first test of putting the CEE Hub’s governance model into practice. We had the rules; we still needed to build the process around them. That meant establishing an independent Electoral Commission, translating eligibility rules into practice, working with two different electorates, and building Fala, our own voting tool on Wikimedia Toolforge.
From rules to an election
The election had two constituencies: individual CEE community members and CEE affiliates, each electing four members. That made eligibility one of the first practical challenges. Community voters had to meet both Wikimedia activity requirements and demonstrate a connection to the CEE community, while affiliates had to designate representatives to vote on their behalf.
To oversee the process, an independent three-member Electoral Commission was established: Antanana as Chair, Bencemac and Gdarin. The Commission verified candidates and voter eligibility, interpreted the rules when unclear cases appeared, supervised the election, and ultimately certified the results. Hub staff supported the process and its technical implementation, but decisions about eligibility and the application of election rules remained with the Commission.
Thirteen candidates entered the nomination process, and after the eligibility review, twelve were confirmed for the final ballots: six Community candidates and six Affiliate candidates.
Building Fala
One of the biggest practical questions was how to run the vote itself. The election had two different electorates, different eligibility rules, preferential voting, and the possibility that one person could be eligible to vote in both categories.
Instead of adapting the election to the limits of an existing tool, we built Fala on Wikimedia Toolforge. Voters logged in with their Wikimedia accounts, eligibility could be checked through the system, and Community and Affiliate voting were handled separately. Voters could also return and update their ballot before the deadline.
Privacy was part of the design as well. Fala recorded who had voted and when a ballot was submitted or updated, but it did not keep the voter’s candidate selections or rankings linked to their identity.
Building Fala also strengthened the Hub’s ability to run its own governance processes independently. We were not limited to whatever an existing election platform happened to support; we could build the voting process around the rules and needs defined by the CEE Hub itself.
Voting and results
Voting was open from 6 to 20 July 2026. On each ballot, voters could rank as many or as few candidates as they wanted. The candidate ranked first received six points, the second five, and so on, while unranked candidates received no points.
Fifty-two community members voted in the Community election, while 15 CEE affiliates participated through their designated representatives. The Electoral Commission then certified the results, including the rules used to decide the winner when two or more candidates received the same number of votes in the Affiliate election.
The newly elected members of the CEE Hub Steering Committee.
The first meeting of the new Steering Committee took place on 2 September 2026, which marked the official start of its term. That is also when they selected the Chair: Toni Sant and Co-Chair: Vera Pelhan.
What we learned
The clearest lesson was how difficult it can be to turn governance rules into something a voting system can actually verify. Some criteria, such as account age, edit count and block history, could be checked directly from Wikimedia data. Others could not. For example, eligibility through membership in approved CEE mailing lists could not be verified by existing voting tools such as SecurePoll. That problem led directly to Fala: voters log in with their Wikimedia account, verify their email with a one-time code, and the address is checked against a whitelist built from the approved mailing lists. In other words, the election rules themselves shaped the architecture of the tool.
A different lesson came from affiliate participation. Some eligible affiliates never nominated a representative and therefore never voted. That showed us that simply giving affiliates a formal role in governance is not enough; they also need to see the election as part of their own responsibility and engage with the process early enough. After the election, the Electoral Commission followed up directly with non-participating affiliates to understand why they had dropped out. For future elections, earlier contact, clearer expectations and more active follow-up with affiliates will probably matter as much as the voting system itself.
What comes next
The election also made us think more broadly about how the CEE Hub puts its governance into practice. If the Hub is going to make more of its own decisions through formal community processes, it needs infrastructure that can support them. In some cases, the available tools were designed for different purposes; in others, there was simply no dedicated tool for the kind of internal decision-making the Hub needed.
For that reason, we decided to build Iskara, a voting tool for internal CEE Hub decision-making. The aim is to give the Hub greater independence in implementing its governance and a practical way to run its own votes when they are needed. Fala was our first experience of building such infrastructure around a real governance process; Iskara takes that experience further and applies it to the Hub’s internal decision-making more generally.
To learn more about the Steering Committee and internal governance of Wikimedia CEE Hub, check out the dedicated Meta page.
A reflection from Wikimedia Kenya User Group on why skills development, shared leadership and opportunities for growth are essential to building resilient communities.
Wikimedia Kenya celebrates Wikipedia@25
There was a point during Wikimedia Kenya User Group’s recent team-building day when somewhere between the conversations, laughter and uncomfortable moments of reflection, the room changed. The titles and responsibilities that usually defined us seemed to fall away, and for a while, we were simply what we had spent years trying to build: a community.
We spent the day competing in well-crafted games, laughing at our desperate attempts to win and the missteps that cost us points, while discovering just how differently each of us approaches a challenge. But beneath the fun, the activities revealed something more important; they showed us how much we rely on trust, communication and listening to work towards a common goal, and how leadership is not always about taking charge, but also about knowing when to step back and make space for someone else.
The people in that room were not only campaign organisers delivering projects and programmes. They were also members of the Core Team supporting Wikimedia Kenya UserGroup’s mission and governance. That made the day about more than team-building but also an opportunity to reflect on how we work together, the kind of leaders we want to become, and ultimately, the kind of community we are building.
“I really enjoyed the team-building activity because it gave us a chance to step away from our usual roles and understand each other differently. It reminded me that building a strong community is also about building trust within the team, understanding the different strengths each one brings to the table, reflecting on and learning from our mistakes, creating space for different people to belong and learning how to support each other better.” Terry Boke, Community Organiser & Core Team Member
Building Communities Means Investing in People
It is easy to measure a growing community through the number of new contributors, articles created, events delivered, partnerships established or campaigns completed. But behind every one of those numbers are people: people who need the confidence to take initiative, the skills to do it well, the opportunity to take responsibility, and a community that recognises their potential and gives them room to grow.
For Wikimedia Kenya, leadership development is therefore not a separate activity sitting alongside our programmes. It is part of how we are building a resilient and sustainable community.
We don’t just want volunteers whose contribution is limited to editorial work. We want to build a community of people with the skills, confidence and agency to take on different roles, lead initiatives, solve problems and shape the direction of the movement. Whether they are organising campaigns, building partnerships, mentoring others, contributing to governance or creating knowledge, we want people to see themselves not just as participants, but as active contributors to the growth and future of the community across Kenya.
That means mentorship, nurturing talent and creating opportunities for people to practise leadership before they are formally given a leadership title. It means developing the skills to communicate strategically, make decisions, work across different perspectives, take responsibility for outcomes and, just as importantly, make space for others to contribute and lead.
This thinking is reflected in our 2026/27 Strategic Plan, which recognises leadership development as an important part of building a resilient and sustainable community.
From Team Building to Communicating for Impact
Drawing on more than a decade of experience in strategic communications, community building and leadership development, I wanted to inspire the team to think about how we could strengthen the way we work and grow as a community. I therefore led a practical session on “Communicating for Impact: From Strategy to Community Engagement,” built around a simple question:
How do we translate Wikimedia Kenya User Group’s strategy into action, communicate more effectively, engage our community meaningfully, and ensure that we can see, measure and document the impact of our work?
For people taking on leadership and coordination roles, communication is not simply about writing better outreach emails, designing social media posts or making event announcements. It is about understanding people and audiences, listening well, building trust, navigating differences, working collectively and creating the conditions for others to contribute and lead. It is also about connecting the decisions we make and the work we do every day to Wikimedia Kenya’s strategic priorities and the wider movement’s goals.
Developing these skills is an essential part of developing people who can take on greater responsibility, support others and help shape the future of the community.
We explored a simple progression:
Strategy → Communication → Engagement → Action → Impact
The aim was to help us see that communication cannot sit separately from strategy. It should help people understand the purpose behind our work, see where they fit and feel empowered to contribute.
What stood out to me was not simply what people learned, but how quickly the boundaries between training, team building and strategy began to disappear. The conversations moved naturally from how we communicate to how we work together, take responsibility and create opportunities for others to contribute. The session became a practical exercise in leadership development, building the skills needed not only to deliver our work, but to shape what comes next.
That shift was reflected in the feedback from one of our Core Team members:
“This was really great for understanding the bigger picture of our work and learning how to move more strategically. I feel empowered to think differently about how I plan and engage with the community and external stakeholders in future projects and campaigns that I lead.” Faith Mwanyolo, Core Team Member & Lead Organizer, Wiki Loves Africa
One practical lesson from the communications training was the need to make strategic alignment part of our planning process, rather than something we consider after a project is already underway. Going forward, we want every project and campaign to begin by asking how it advances the Wikimedia Kenya Strategic Plan and contributes to what we are working towards as a community.
To support this, we are developing a standard project planning template for organisers and a review checklist for the Core Team. The template will help teams identify the strategic objective their project contributes to, the activities they will undertake, the outputs they expect to deliver, the outcomes they aim to achieve and the metrics they will use to track progress.
The checklist will provide a consistent and transparent approach to reviewing internal proposals, helping us assess not only whether an activity is well designed, but also how clearly it contributes to our strategic priorities and how responsibility for results is shared.
The intended outcome is a more deliberate approach to how we plan, implement and evaluate our work. Over time, this should help us understand which activities are contributing to our goals, where we are making significant progress, where gaps remain and where we need to adapt.
Four Lessons That Have Shaped How We Build Our Community
For emerging communities, especially those building themselves with limited resources, investing in leadership can easily become an afterthought-something to address once the community is larger, programmes are more established or funding is more secure.
Our experience over the past five years has taught us something different: leadership development is not something that should follow community growth; it is one of the things that makes sustainable growth possible. As more people develop the skills and confidence to take responsibility, lead others and shape the direction of the community, growth becomes something the community can build and sustain collectively.
Below are four lessons that have shaped how we build our community.
1. Make leadership development part of the strategy
Don’t wait for people to emerge as leaders by accident. Create deliberate opportunities for mentorship and for people to take responsibility, experiment, make decisions and learn from experience.
Leadership grows when people are trusted with meaningful roles and supported as they take them on. This also means recognising that people develop at different stages and may need different opportunities to grow—from taking on their first organising role to leading a major campaign, mentoring others or contributing to governance.
2. Don’t separate team building from organisational development
Games, reflection and informal conversations can reveal things that formal meetings don’t. A team that understands how its members communicate, solve problems and respond under pressure is better equipped to collaborate when the real work begins.
Team building therefore has a role beyond creating a good atmosphere. It can help people understand one another’s strengths, identify areas where they need to work differently and build the trust needed to share responsibility.
3. Connect activities to purpose
People taking responsibility for campaigns and community activities should understand not only what they are doing, but why it matters and how it contributes to the community’s wider goals and the Wikimedia movement’s strategy.
When people understand the connection between an edit-a-thon, partnership, training or outreach activity and the bigger organisational goal, they are more likely to take ownership of the work and see how their contribution fits into the community’s growth.
As one of our Core Team members reflected:
“When we understand why we are doing something and how it contributes to our wider goals, the work takes on a different meaning. We are no longer just delivering activities; we are making deliberate contributions towards the kind of community and movement we want to build.” Lebu Ayiga, Community Organiser & Core Team Member
4. Create room for leadership to move
Volunteer burnout can quietly undermine growing communities when too much responsibility rests on a small number of committed leaders. Those who help build a community can easily become the people expected to organise every campaign, solve every problem and keep everything moving. Over time, this can limit both their capacity and the community’s growth.
We have learned that investing in people also means creating room for leadership to move. This means creating pathways for members to take on new responsibilities, develop the skills and confidence to lead, and step back when others are ready to step forward.
For us, this is not only about preventing burnout. It is about building a wider base of people who can share responsibility, mentor others and take on greater leadership roles. When leadership is shared, the community becomes less dependent on individuals and better able to sustain its growth.
Invest in Leaders at Every Stage
Wikimedia communities are built around knowledge, but they are sustained by people. If we want our communities to grow and remain sustainable, we have to invest in people at every stage of their journey.
That means creating pathways for new leaders to emerge, while also giving existing leaders opportunities to deepen their skills, take on new challenges and progress into new roles. Leadership development should create space for people to build confidence, share responsibility, mentor others and continue finding meaningful ways to contribute.
Leadership should not be viewed only as a pathway towards replacing one person with another. People who have already taken on leadership responsibilities also need opportunities to learn, evolve and take on new challenges. In a volunteer movement, creating those opportunities can be just as important to sustaining engagement as bringing new people into leadership.
Over time, this creates resilient communities where people at different stages can continue to grow, contribute, lead and support others.
Winnie Kabintie is the Executive Director, Wikimedia Kenya User Group
The outreach served as a capacity-building initiative designed to recruit, train, and mentor new Wikimedia contributors while promoting the documentation of Igala language, culture, history, and notable personalities on Wikimedia platforms. Through practical editing sessions, mentorship, and collaborative learning, participants gained the skills required to contribute quality knowledge to Wikipedia and related Wikimedia projects.
Igala Wikimedia Campus Outreach at Prince Abubakar Audu University Anyingba
Project Objectives
The primary objective of the outreach was to increase the number of active Igala Wikimedia editors and improve the availability of Igala-related knowledge on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Specifically, the project sought to:
Train new editors in Wikipedia editing and Wikimedia policies.
Increase the number of contributors to the Igala Wikimedia community.
Document and preserve Igala language, culture, history, and notable personalities.
Improve the quality and accessibility of Igala-related content online.
Build a sustainable campus-based Wikimedia community through mentorship and continuous engagement.
Project Activities
Attah Igala – Traditional rulership and the history of the Igala Kingdom.
Idah, Kogi State – Historical significance, culture, and landmarks of the ancestral home of the Igala people.
Participants also improved existing Wikipedia articles and enhanced Wikidata items relating to Igala language, places, and distinguished personalities. These contributions help bridge the existing knowledge gap affecting indigenous Nigerian languages on Wikimedia platforms.
Mentorship and Community Growth
Mentorship remained a central component of the outreach. Experienced Wikimedia volunteers provided continuous guidance throughout the training sessions, ensuring that participants understood editing standards and best practices.A significant outcome of the mentorship process was the growth in participants’ confidence and editing skills. Many attendees joined with little or no prior Wikimedia experience but successfully progressed to independently creating and improving articles by the end of the outreach. This demonstrates the importance of sustained mentorship in retaining new editors and strengthening the local Wikimedia community.
Experience
The outreach was both impactful and inspiring. Participants showed enthusiasm throughout the training sessions and demonstrated a genuine interest in preserving and promoting Igala knowledge online. The collaborative atmosphere encouraged peer learning, teamwork, and active participation.It was particularly rewarding to observe participants transition from beginners to confident contributors capable of independently editing Wikipedia. The project also strengthened relationships among the participating institutions and laid the foundation for future Wikimedia activities within the campuses.
Benefits and Impact
The outreach produced several positive outcomes, including:
Increased awareness of Wikimedia projects among students and academic communities.
Development of new editing skills among participants.
Improved representation of Igala language, culture, and history on Wikipedia.
Strengthened collaboration among campus communities and the Igala Wikimedia user community.
Contribution towards reducing the content gap affecting indigenous Nigerian languages.
Establishment of a growing network of volunteers committed to documenting Igala knowledge.
These contributions will continue to benefit researchers, students, and the wider public by making reliable information about the Igala people more visible and accessible globally.
Challenges Encountered
Despite the success of the outreach, several challenges were experienced during implementation:
Inconsistent internet connectivity affected editing sessions in some locations.
Limited availability of laptops among participants reduced hands-on participation.
Power supply interruptions occasionally delayed training activities.
Some participants required additional time to fully understand Wikipedia editing guidelines and policies.
Time constraints limited the depth of practical editing during some sessions.
These challenges were addressed through mentoring, flexible training schedules, collaborative editing, and continuous follow-up support after the events.
Outcomes and Contributions
The outreach successfully expanded the Igala Wikimedia community while increasing the quantity and quality of Igala-related content across Wikimedia projects.
The Igala Wikimedia Outreach continues to play an important role in promoting language equity and representation within the Wikimedia movement. Future activities will focus on:
Sustaining mentorship for newly recruited editors.
Organizing advanced editing workshops and edit-a-thons.
Expanding the outreach to additional tertiary institutions and communities.
Encouraging regular contributions to Wikipedia and Wikidata.
Building long-term partnerships with educational institutions to strengthen the Igala Wikimedia community.
Conclusion
The Igala Wikimedia Campus Outreach successfully achieved its objective of empowering new contributors to document and preserve Igala knowledge on Wikimedia platforms. Through training, mentorship, and collaborative editing, participants contributed meaningful content that enriches Wikipedia and improves global access to information about the Igala people, their language, history, traditions, and achievements.The project represents a significant step toward addressing the underrepresentation of indigenous Nigerian languages online while building a sustainable community of editors committed to preserving Igala heritage for future generations. Continued mentorship, institutional collaboration, and community engagement will further strengthen the impact and sustainability of this initiative..
As the Iranian Wikimedians User Group (IWUG) started preparing its plans for the coming year and its next grant proposal, we wanted to hear directly from the community about what kinds of activities they were interested in and where we could do better.
In June 2026, we conducted a survey asking people around the user group about their current involvement with IWUG, their interest in future activities, and the kinds of programs and training they would find useful.
We received 147 responses. The results are now helping us shape our plans for the next year.
Who responded?
The survey ran from 8 to 23 June 2026. It was mainly intended for IWUG members and people connected with the user group community.
We shared it through the IWUG Telegram group and channel, as well as the Persian Wikipedia Village Pump (قهوهخانه). Anyone who had the link could respond.
Because participation was open and self-selected, the results should not be treated as representative of the entire Persian Wikipedia community. The survey was intended to help us understand the community around IWUG and what people in that community expect from the user group.
Almost all respondents were active on Wikipedia. 146 of the 147 respondents selected Wikipedia as one of the Wikimedia projects where they are most active. Some also reported contributing to Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikisource and other Wikimedia projects.
Interest is high, but participation is much lower
One of the clearest results was the difference between people’s interest in IWUG activities and how much they currently participate.
85% of respondents reported at least a medium level of interest in participating in IWUG activities. Of those, 44.9% described their interest as high or very high.
Current participation was much lower.
65.3% said their current participation in IWUG was none, very low or low. Only 9.5% described their participation as high or very high.
The survey also showed that many respondents were not very familiar with IWUG. 70.1% said they had no, very little or low familiarity with the user group, while only 11.6% reported high or very high familiarity.
Taken together, these results suggest that there are people who are interested in getting involved but do not yet participate regularly, and in many cases may not know enough about IWUG or how to take part.
This is something we want to work on during the coming year.
Online education was the most popular activity
Education was one of the strongest themes in the responses.
When we asked which types of activities people would be interested in joining, online educational and skill-building programs were the most popular option, selected by 92 respondents (62.6%).
Article-writing campaigns and competitions were selected by 70 respondents (47.6%), while 62 respondents (42.2%) were interested in in-person social gatherings.
We also asked what people would like to learn through online programs.
97 respondents (66%) selected introductory training about Wikipedia and editing. 83 (56.5%) were interested in tools and scripts. 78 (53.1%) wanted to learn more about contributing to other Wikimedia projects such as Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons and Wikisource, and 67 respondents (45.6%) were interested in learning more about the wider Wikimedia movement.
Some of the written responses also mentioned that learning how Wikipedia works can be difficult, especially for newer contributors. Several respondents asked for clearer and more accessible educational material in Persian.
This fits closely with some of the programs we were already considering.
During the coming year, IWUG plans to create short educational videos in Persian and organize online workshops and webinars introducing users to different ways of contributing to Wikimedia projects. The survey results will help us decide which topics to prioritize.
What other activities are people interested in?
Respondents also showed considerable interest in collaborative campaigns and competitions.
The most popular option in this area was competitions organized together with other countries or Wikipedia communities, selected by 79 respondents (53.7%).
Among established Wikimedia campaigns, Wiki Loves Earth was selected by 74 respondents (50.3%), followed by Wiki Loves Folklore with 70 (47.6%). Wiki Loves Monuments was selected by 49 respondents, while Women in Red and Wikipedia Asian Month each received 38 selections.
For possible in-person programs, educational workshops were selected by 90 respondents (61.2%). Informal meetups were selected by 81 (55.1%), Wikipedia birthday celebrations by 79 (53.7%), and technical sessions focused on bug fixing and tool development by 63 (42.9%).
We also asked how people would like to hear about future IWUG activities. 114 respondents, or 77.6%, said they would like to receive information about programs by email.
These responses give us a useful picture of both the programs people are interested in and how we can do a better job of informing them about those opportunities.
Using the results in our planning
The main purpose of this survey was practical. We are currently preparing our annual plan and our next grant proposal, and we wanted community feedback to be part of that process.
Some of the results have confirmed ideas that were already under discussion, particularly our plans for educational videos, webinars and online workshops.
Other results, especially the difference between interest and current participation, showed us that we also need to pay more attention to outreach and communication. It is not enough to organize activities if interested contributors do not know about them or are unsure how to get involved.
We hope to use the coming year to make IWUG’s activities more visible and make it easier for interested contributors to participate.
A larger Persian Wikipedia survey is coming
This survey was focused on the community around IWUG. We are also planning a much larger survey aimed at the wider Persian Wikipedia community.
There is some history behind this. From 21 May to 20 June 2016, Iranian Wikimedians conducted a large survey of the Persian Wikipedia community that received 1,780 responses. It was promoted very widely, including outside the usual Wikimedia community channels. The results of that survey were never formally published.
Later in 2026, we plan to conduct another broad survey of the Persian Wikipedia community. Like the 2016 survey, it will be promoted well beyond IWUG’s own channels and will also use outreach outside Wikimedia spaces.
The purpose of that survey will be different from the June IWUG survey. We want to hear from a much wider range of Persian Wikipedia users and contributors and get a broader picture of the community.
After the new survey is completed and its results are published, we also plan to prepare a separate report comparing the findings with the 2016 survey.
For now, the June survey has already given us useful information for our immediate planning. It showed strong interest in educational activities, identified areas where contributors want more support, and highlighted a clear gap between people’s interest in IWUG and their current level of participation.
Those findings will be part of how we shape our programs for the coming year.
After three years of development, Capacity Exchange (CapX) has entered a new cycle. Funded through a Wikimedia CH grant, from July to December 2026, we will be working to bring the tool to communities around the world and gather feedback from users, with a particular focus on community managers and leaders.
In this cycle, we are focused on building relationships with community managers and leaders, introducing them to CapX and exploring how it can help them carry out their work more easily and with better data to inform their decisions. We also want to understand how the tool could be improved for this audience and explore ways of adapting it to their needs.
Finally, we are presenting the possibilities of working with the CapX API to develop tools and solutions tailored to specific community needs.
Read more about these activities below.
A new cycle: outreach and community engagement
Amanda Jurno presenting CapX at Wikimania Paris in July 2026.
This new cycle is focused on outreach, community engagement, and understanding how CapX can be useful in the everyday work of Wikimedia communities.
Benny Lin, Joris Quarshie and Amanda Jurno are scheduling workshops, meetings, and conversations with communities and organizations around the Movement. These conversations are an opportunity to introduce CapX, demonstrate what the tool can do, and, most importantly, listen to what communities need.
We are particularly interested in talking with community managers, organizers, and leaders about how CapX could support activities such as finding people with specific skills, connecting communities, sharing knowledge, organizing learning opportunities, and building capacity.
We are also reaching out to Wikimedia organizations and networks to better understand where CapX can fit into existing community practices.
And, in true Wikimedia spirit, we are asking Wikimedians to help us reach other Wikimedians. If you know a community, organization, or community leader who might benefit from learning about CapX, please help us connect with them!
You can get in touch with us by email at capx@wmnobrasil.org, send us a message in our Telegram group, or contact us directly through your CapX profile.
We want to hear from you
Alongside our outreach activities, we have launched two new feedback surveys to help us evaluate the current version of CapX.
The first survey focuses on usability and user experience. We want to understand how people experience the tool, what works well, and what could be improved. (Access it here).
The second survey is aimed at community leaders and managers. It seeks to understand how CapX could better support their everyday work and what they would need from the platform to make it genuinely useful for their communities. (Access it here).
Both surveys are anonymous and will remain open until December 2026.
We encourage everyone to participate and, especially, to share the surveys with their communities and networks. The feedback we receive will help us assess whether another development cycle is needed and, if so, what it should focus on.
CapX is open to new (tech) possibilities
Although the main development cycle has ended, CapX is not a closed platform.
CapX has an open API, which means that developers and organizations can build upon the data and functionalities of the platform according to their own needs and interests. We hope this can open the door to new uses, integrations, experiments, and tools built by the community.
Whether you are a developer interested in building something with CapX, a community leader looking for ways to use it, or simply a Wikimedian who wants to explore the platform, there is room for you to help make CapX more useful for the Movement.
Volunteers with technical skills can also contribute to CapX by helping with bug fixes, code maintenance, and other technical improvements.
To contribute, developers need a GitHub account and access to the project repository. Contributions should be linked to a GitHub issue and submitted through a pull request for review. Routine maintenance can be carried out by volunteers, while significant changes or new features must be discussed and approved by the CapX Committee beforehand.
Reach out to us if you need more information, by email or through our Telegram group.
Explore CapX, share it with your community, give us your feedback, and build upon it. Find out more about our activities and documentation on our Meta-wiki page.
I started working as a volunteer community manager for Wiki for Human Rights, Nigeria, in November 2025 with a focus on organizing trainings and retaining LGBTIQ+ Nigerian editors as active contributors to Wikimedia projects. Although I created my Wikimedia account on 1 March 2024, I did not understand how editing worked and never made any contributions after creating it.
The same year, I attended a Wikimedia session on Queerpedia. As a writer who is passionate about volunteering, particularly in the open knowledge movement, I still left without knowing how to contribute. The session ended with participants creating accounts but without a practical understanding of how Wikimedia actually worked. This is something I have observed among newcomers: navigating Wikipedia, the most well-known Wikimedia project, can be a daunting experience.
After-session group picture
That changed when I attended Wiki Loves Pride 2025, held on 29 June. It was my first in-person Wikimedia event, and with my laptop beside me, everything about contributing to Wikipedia suddenly became much clearer. Through editing Wikipedia, I also discovered the wider Wikimedia ecosystem and its sister projects. Even after the training, I still encountered a few challenges, particularly with adding awards, information tables, and infoboxes. However, through conversations on WhatsApp with the Wikimedia Nigeria Project Officer, Ayokanmi Oyeyemi (user: Kaizenify), who facilitated the training, as well as guidance from Wikipedia help pages and Wikimedia Commons documentation, I was able to overcome those challenges.
Since assuming the role of Community Manager and Project Officer for Wiki for Human Rights, Nigeria, I organised monthly virtual and physical training sessions aimed at improving editor retention. Organising both the physical and virtual Wiki Loves Pride campaign this June felt like a full-circle moment; déjà vu. It also became an opportunity to reflect on the learning experiences from reviewing participants’ contributions and identifying areas where new editors commonly struggled.
Tony Obinna facilitating a session
Since becoming an active Wikimedia contributor in July 2025, I have made more than 3,000 edits across Wikimedia projects, with a primary focus on LGBTIQ+ and Nigerian topics. Beyond editing, I have also taken on leadership positions, including serving as a committee member for the Nigerian National Funding program and as a core organizing member for Queering Wiki, scheduled to take place later this year in Canada.
Alongside the online Wiki Loves Pride campaign, we partnered with the Centre for Population Health Initiatives (CPHI), a health organization that serves both the general population and minority communities, to host Wiki Loves Pride. The program combined a Pride celebration with Wikimedia training for both experienced and new editors. It also marked the first time I independently facilitated an entire Wikimedia training session from the beginning to the end: account creation, making edits, and introducing participants to the broader Wikimedia ecosystem.
Participants engaged throughout the session
As someone who has always dreaded public speaking because of a minor speech impediment, becoming part of the Wikimedia movement as a community leader has helped me grow tremendously. Standing in front of more than 15 participants and leading a session on documenting queer knowledge, I did not freeze or lose confidence. Community advocacy for LGBTIQ+ people in Nigeria has always required me to speak publicly from time to time, but Wikimedia has made it a consistent part of my work through monthly virtual and physical trainings. It has taught me that confidence in public speaking is often built through practice, and that many of the fears we carry can gradually be overcome through repeated experience.
This is a testimonial graphic design for the On-Wiki Skills Mentorship Program Cohort 2 (2026)
Before joining the On‑Wiki Skills mentorship program, my engagement with Wikimedia projects was mostly as a reader. I was curious about open knowledge but unfamiliar with how data works or how contributors actively build and maintain Wikimedia projects.
Through the mentorship, I was introduced to Wikimedia as a collaborative ecosystem that offers structured ways of organizing and connecting knowledge. The learning curve was initially challenging especially understanding items, properties, statements, and references but with guidance from mentors and hands‑on practice, these concepts gradually became clearer.
Skill Acquired
During the training, I developed skills in sourcing and referencing information and understanding structured data. These experiences changed how I view knowledge creation and reinforced the idea that learning continues beyond formal lessons.
Some of my image uploads
Administration Block from Ghana Standards Authority
Pesticides Residue Block from Ghana Standards Authority
Fish Department from Ghana Standards Authority
Participating in practical exercises and guided contributions helped build my confidence and showed me that I could engage meaningfully with a global open‑knowledge communication.
My Gratitude
I am grateful to the Wikimedia community, mentors, and program organizers for their support and encouragement. Completing the mentorship marked a new beginning for me, and I look forward to continuing to explore and contribute to open knowledge
There was a time when Wikipedia was the go-to source for information and one of the most trusted tools for research across the world. From students and journalists to researchers and everyday internet users, millions relied on the platform for quick and accessible knowledge. However, as technology continues to evolve, the way people consume information has also changed.
Today, Wikipedia faces growing competition from emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools and social media platforms, which now shape how many people search for and engage with information online. As a result, the platform has experienced a decline in page views over the years, raising important questions about its future relevance and visibility in the digital age.
To address these concerns, about 100 Wikimedian affiliates, volunteers, and external experts gathered in Frankfurt am Main from 30 January to 1 February 2026, for the Wikimedia Futures Lab event organised by the Wikimedia movement. The Futures Lab serves as a space for research, experimentation, and forward-thinking conversations on the future of free knowledge.
At a time when technology is rapidly transforming the internet and information-sharing, the event provided an opportunity for participants to reflect on how Wikipedia can continue to remain relevant, visible, and trusted in an increasingly digital and AI-driven world.
Having attended the Wikimedia Futures Lab event, the guests shared their experiences, reflections, and key takeaways from the discussions held in Frankfurt.
“The world around us is changing really fast. When you think about how people trust information online, AI-generated media, new laws, and shifting technologies, it becomes important to understand how these trends affect us as the Wikimedia community,” says Tochi.
Wikipedia vs Digital Age
Despite technological advancement, Wikipedia, once regarded as one of the most trusted digital information platforms, has seen a decline in page views since 2016 as more people turn to AI tools for information. However, it is important to recognise that many AI systems are trained using content from platforms like Wikipedia.
“For example, when you search for something on Google, the AI overview provides a summary alongside references. Very few people actually click on the Wikipedia link for the longer version. This shows that people are still consuming Wikipedia content, but AI tools now act as middlemen,” explains Olubusola.
According to her, this shift means Wikipedia can no longer rely solely on users visiting the platform directly. Instead, it must adapt to changing online habits and find ways to bring information closer to the spaces where audiences already spend their time.
She adds that Wikipedia must adapt by meeting audiences where they already are, bringing information directly to the platforms people use instead of expecting them to always visit the main website.
The solution
The rise of AI and social media has also changed how people consume information. Many users now prefer short-form content over long-form reading because of shrinking attention spans. Since Wikipedia is traditionally a long-form platform, there is growing pressure for it to evolve alongside these changing habits.
For many younger internet users, information is no longer consumed through lengthy articles alone. Videos, creators, podcasts, and short-form explainers are increasingly becoming the preferred way to learn and engage online.
“People are moving away from institution-based information and increasingly relying on personalities. They want direct interaction, and video content makes information easier to consume. As Wikimedia, we need to pay attention to these shifts so we can meet people where they are,” says Ruby.
The Dilemma
Wikimedia exists because of the volunteers who edit and write the content on the platform. While keeping up with technological change is necessary, the movement also faces the challenge of ensuring that technology does not overshadow the human element that has always been at the centre of Wikimedia projects.
As conversations around AI continue to grow, many community members believe the focus should remain on supporting contributors rather than replacing them.
Last year, the Wikimedian community launched its AI Strategy, which clearly showed that AI should not replace the human writers and editors but rather support their work.
For close to two years, my involvement in the Wikimedia ecosystem was mostly technical. I contributed through code during hackathons as a member of Wiki Mentor Africa. I understood the connections among platforms such as Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Commons. I knew their importance, but I also felt there was more I could do. Something was missing in how I was contributing.
I came into the program with one clear goal: to gain a deeper, practical understanding of how to contribute beyond the technical side of Wikimedia. I wanted to move from simply supporting the ecosystem to actively building knowledge within it.
The training opened my eyes to the structure and responsibility behind Wikimedia contributions. I learned that every Wikimedia project is guided by strong principles that protect the quality and reliability of information.
On Wikipedia, content must be notable, verifiable, and supported by reliable sources. On Wikidata, data must be structured, accurate, and referenced. On Wikimedia Commons, files must follow copyright and licensing policies.
These are not just guidelines; they are what make Wikimedia a trusted global knowledge resource.
Learning Through Practice
One of the strongest aspects of the mentorship program was its practical training. The program did not simply explain policies and standards; it required us to apply them through real contributions.
I learned how to properly reference articles, structure content, improve neutrality, and contribute according to Wikimedia standards. At first, this process was challenging. Finding reliable sources, understanding notability requirements, and writing neutrally required patience and attention to detail.
However, through continuous practice and guidance from the trainers, these concepts gradually became clearer and easier to apply.
The trainers also played a major role in making the experience impactful. Complex policies and technical concepts were broken down into simple, understandable steps, making the learning process accessible and encouraging.
Milestones That Changed My Confidence
One major milestone for me during the program was creating two articles and receiving a barnstar in recognition of my contributions.
That moment shifted my confidence completely.
For the first time, I felt that I was no longer just observing how open knowledge is built behind the scenes. I was actively contributing to the preservation and sharing of knowledge myself.
The experience helped me see Wikimedia differently. It became more than a technical ecosystem I contributed to during hackathons. It became a collaborative space where I could directly improve content, document knowledge, and support representation online.
Growing Beyond the Program
Beyond technical editing skills, the mentorship program also changed my perspective on community contribution and leadership.
Looking ahead, I plan to share what I have learned with my community and support the onboarding of new contributors. I am also stepping into a new role as a trainer for an April editathon, which reflects how much this experience has shaped my growth within the Wikimedia movement.
This journey has been both challenging and rewarding. It pushed me to learn, adapt, and contribute more meaningfully.
Wikimedia is more than a platform. It is a collective effort to make knowledge accessible to everyone.
Login
