Content Partnerships Hub/Expert committee/Meeting notes

• In January 2026, the Expert Committee discussed the overall status of the Helpdesk, noting that progress on existing requests remained limited due to pending information and external dependencies. Minor updates were made to Meta pages and internal documentation, with the expectation that more substantial developments would follow as new requests arrived. A key part of the discussion focused on internal capacity, where participants reflected on the potential risk of the Helpdesk becoming overwhelmed if request volume increases. It was suggested that additional volunteers could be mobilized when needed, particularly through task forces for more complex or long-term projects. At the same time, the group agreed that the immediate priority should be to increase the visibility of the Helpdesk across the Wikimedia movement. Communication strategies were discussed, including collaboration with the communications team and dissemination through upcoming blog posts, with the expectation that broader engagement would likely grow later in 2026. It was also emphasized that even unresolved requests are valuable, as they help identify structural gaps and inform future development and funding strategies.
• On February meeting, a major structural milestone was reached with the formal creation of the Helpdesk Standing Working Group, designed to take on the operational and administrative execution of requests. The division of roles within the Helpdesk ecosystem was clarified, with the Expert Committee focusing on strategic input and the Working Group handling implementation tasks. Members of the new group were introduced, highlighting their diverse expertise as a key asset for the next phase of operations. The group also discussed ongoing licensing negotiations with UNESCO and FAO, noting that progress remained slow due to institutional processes beyond the Helpdesk’s control. Two new requests were introduced. The first, from the Kazakhstan User Group, aims to explore collaboration with the UNESCO Regional Office in Almaty, with a focus on accessing and potentially sharing archival multimedia materials. This case sparked broader reflections on institutional engagement, including the need for clearer frameworks, documentation, and positioning within the Wikimedia ecosystem. The second request, from Chile, involves structuring historical administrative data for integration into Wikimedia projects. Participants highlighted both legal feasibility (given the factual nature of the data) and significant technical challenges, particularly in modeling complex spatial and temporal changes. It was agreed that both requests would require phased approaches.
• In March meeting, discussions reflected the consolidation of the Helpdesk’s evolving structure, including the operationalization of the Standing Working Group and the ongoing formation of a Steering Committee as a governance body for the Hub. It was also confirmed that the Helpdesk want to have a physical presence at Wikimania Paris 2026. Updates on active requests highlighted that the UNESCO-related initiative remains in a diplomatic and exploratory phase, pending further clarification on available materials and licensing conditions. The Chilean administrative data project continued to be discussed in depth, with progress on preliminary analysis and strong emphasis on challenges related to data standardization, historical complexity, and the need for expert validation despite the potential use of AI tools. The San Francisco Bay Area initiative was framed as a capacity-building process. More broadly, participants reflected on the potential for the Helpdesk to evolve into a coordination hub within the Wikimedia ecosystem, capable of connecting expertise, directing requests, and strengthening collaboration across communities.

• In October 2025, the Expert Committee meeting included the introduction of Karin Glasemann as the new Chief Operating Officer for the Helpdesk, who also provided an update on the Hub grant application, noting that it had received a favourable evaluation. During the session, two active requests were reviewed. The first, focused on aligning horse breed data with FAO datasets, showed promising technical feasibility, including the possibility of importing structured data into Wikidata and sourcing images through the Wikimedia Sverige community. The second request, related to agricultural profiles in the Philippines, raised challenges regarding how to translate available materials into Wikimedia-compatible formats. Potential collaborations were explored, including connections with the OpenStreetMap community and further clarification on FAO licensing through outreach to John Cummings.
• In November 2025, it was announced that the Content Partnerships Hub was preparing for the relaunch of the Helpdesk and related tools, following the approval of the Hub grant. This milestone enabled the activation of previously pending tasks, including the formation of working groups dedicated to handling Helpdesk requests, while maintaining the Expert Committee’s advisory role. At the same time, both ongoing requests remained blocked, as the team awaited clarification regarding copyright and licensing conditions from FAO and UNESCO.
• During the meeting held on 16 December 2025, discussions focused on the status of active requests, broader updates on the Hub, and a dedicated feedback session with the Expert Committee. It was noted that progress on requests remained limited due to ongoing challenges in securing permission to use FAO-licensed materials. An overview was provided of the upcoming Content Partnerships Hub meeting and the Helpdesk relaunch process, including planned communications through the GLAM Wiki newsletter and related press efforts. Clarifications were made regarding the future role of the Helpdesk, emphasizing its function as a support and guidance mechanism that leverages volunteer expertise, rather than directly executing all project work.

• During July's meeting a new member joined the Expert Committee. Someone at the Helpdesk shared a draft poster for Wikimania 2025 showcasing the Hub’s work, still open for updates. It was also presented a draft communications plan for the Helpdesk, with members suggesting channels like the GLAM Wiki newsletter and Telegram. A new request came from Manfred Werner, seeking Helpdesk support for Turkey’s first WLM contest; resources were shared and a meeting is being scheduled once WMSE staff return.
• In August, it was held a meeting Post-Wikimania, where members of the Expert Committee shared their experiences. Two FAO-related requests were discussed, both raising questions on how best to integrate and present such datasets within Wikimedia projects. The Hub’s grant feedback needs addressing by month’s end, with issues around metrics, communications, and Meta documentation.
• During the meeting held on September, participants reviewed two Helpdesk requests on agricultural profiles in the Philippines and horse data alignment with FAO. They discussed strategies for data use, mapping formats, and coordination with experts to ensure project continuity.

• The committee revisited the Malayalam lexemes request, with someone at the Helpdesk scheduling a meeting with the Wikidata lexeme working group. Current data quality remains a concern, with many of the near 67 000 lexemes lacking proper definitions. Someone at the Helpdesk is creating a dedicated project page on Meta. Recruitment efforts continue, with someone of the expert committee suggesting outreach opportunities like the global GLAM-Wiki call, and Luis advancing the process. They also submitted three Wikimania proposals: two presentations about the Helpdesk and one on Metabase.
• On may some Helpdesk people reported back from the Content Partnerships Hub workshop in Germany, where several affiliates expressed interest in joining. Discussions touched on governance overlaps between the Expert Committee and the Hub. Progress on Malayalam lexemes highlighted the need for enriching data before uploads. Potential new requests were raised; and recruitment advanced for new members for the Expert committee.
• Is on June when new people joined the Expert Committee, with time spent introducing them to the work and workload. It was emphasized the importance of integrated technology as part of future funding conversations.

• In December, a job advertisement for a secretary was published, and it has attracted some encouraging applications. The primary topic of discussion was about needing assistance with Malayalam words: the dataset requires significant editing prior to being uploaded, ideally by dividing it into smaller parts and involving the local community through hackathons. Maintaining sustainability is crucial—any upload should be overseen by those who speak the language. Current tools, such as Lexeme Forms, provide some help, yet they still involve a lot of manual labor. The team proposed learning from other groups that have experience with lexemes.
• During March the focus on Malayalam lexemes continued, highlighting the importance of including native speakers, establishing easy-to-handle workflows, and potentially funding a specific resident position because of the volume of work. The Expert committee also talked about bringing in new members for the Expert Committee, pinpointing necessary skills, and utilizing networks, affiliate data, and GLAM groups to identify suitable candidates; someone at the Helpdesk will share a proposal. Lastly, the team organized plans for Wikimania Nairobi, emphasizing the significance of showcasing the Hub as a unique entity at important movement events.

• Conversations were held about a request to support Malayalam lexemes on Wikidata. The Expert committee agreed it’s relevant for language preservation and has strong potential, especially considering new technologies on the rise. During the conversation, last experiences (Indonesia, Nigeria, Timor Leste) were mentioned, and a Helpdesk member offered to lead or provide technical support given their experience. The project could become a showcase and teaching opportunity. There was also a short discussion on the job ad for secretary, focusing on how technical the role should be.

• It was mentioned that during Wikimania 2024, talks were held discussions with the Ukrainian community focused on preparing tasks for WLM in October, like fixing duplicate categories and improving heritage status items. A Helpdesk member will compile lists of issues for the community to work on. The committee also talked about a Gaza upload project, where WMF could help secure openly licensed images, while the GLAM community and WMSE provide technical support, page building, and mapping Palestinian collections. Governance questions were raised about involving affiliates more directly in global partnerships.
• The conversation during September 2024's meeting turned to defining the role of the Content Partnerships Hub within the wider GLAM ecosystem, including its relationship with WiRs, WMF, and WMSE. Key themes were tool development, engaging IGOs, and ensuring the Hub represents and connects effectively with the global GLAM community.

• Work in Ukraine focused on linking complexes and their parts (near 2 000 objects), assigning heritage status, and preparing a report for the local community. The big challenge is balancing uniform data structures with community autonomy, since definitions of "monument" vary. They stressed the need for practical learning spaces and recognizing different levels of community maturity.
• Updates showed Ukraine still needs local cleanup, while Brazil and India shared experiences of building large, uneven datasets from mixed sources. UNESCO graphics were also discussed: the goal is to free and reuse resources, but files aren’t always accessible; guides exist for extracting SVGs from PDFs.

• There was a request from New Zealand (Auckland War Memorial Museum) that shows the Helpdesk is moving in the right direction — it’s more about learning and support than just doing the work for others. The key thing is not stepping on the affiliate’s turf: what can they do for the museum, and how can we back them up with training or materials? The good part is there’s time, since the museum only expects progress within 6 months. During a next meeting, it was stressed the need to involve the local chapter and think long-term about metadata, possibly through hackathons or sprints. Is in March when resources on OpenRefine and Commons uploads were shared with the museum, emphasizing long-term skills and strategy. They’ll follow up with the NZ chapter before the next steps.
• Ukraine came up too, with the huge monument dataset (95,000 items). The upload still needs refining, and the idea of making a case study was floated — but with questions about risks and fallback plans for projects that big. Who holds the responsibility, the Hub or the local chapter? Also, there’s a need for better reports that show gaps, like monuments in a city with no coordinates, so communities should know what to fix. At the next meeting, Ukraine came up with plans for a case study on WLM data. The group wants clearer guidelines, shared definitions, and maybe monthly workshops to standardize workflows. Someone at the Helpdesk will draft a basic doc. During March, data from uk.wikipedia was used to add heritage status and group monuments, with plans to wrap up by the end of the month and share a summary with the local community.
• The Committee also talked about filling Expert Committee seats, aiming for broader applications and more voices from the Global South.
• A user asked about creating thousands of Wikidata entries for books/authors using OpenRefine, as part of a future edit-a-thon. At the next meeting, it was shared that thousands of books and magazines moved to Internet Archive, plus large batches of visual artists’ data shared with Getty. These could lead to big Wikidata projects and edit-a-thons.
• The group also discussed recruiting new members, setting up a working group on Wikidata migration, and documenting the process on Meta/Wikidata so it’s clear and translatable. A meetup at Wikimania was suggested as a good way to bring people in.

• The Expert committee discussed follow-up work with Wikimedia Ukraine and emphasized the need for better documentation of methodologies and lessons learned from projects like WLM and WLE. They also explored ideas around mapping, including advocacy materials, tool improvements, and organizing a WikiMaps event, while noting challenges such as copyright issues in Brazil and representing conflict borders.

Other talks during their meeting were realted to news about the first Smart Servier Blogspot, plans to improve how committee learnings are documented, and new project proposals around women’s health media content. These include uploading medical images and global datasets to Commons and Wikidata.

• The Expert committee analized the coordination between learning clinics for Wiki Loves Living Heritage and Wiki Loves Monuments, emphasizing the need to avoid duplication and to improve integration of contest data with Wikidata. Work was also shared on supporting Wikimedia Ukraine, particularly concerning risks associated with publishing geographic data during the war. The conversation devolved into concerns about how geolocation might expose monuments to attacks, with comparisons to experiences in other conflict zones. For this, some strategies were proposed, such as grouping data by municipalities rather than publishing precise coordinates were considered, alongside monitoring how data might be accessed across regions.
• The conversations also covered progress on learning clinics, including sessions on identifiers, SPARQL and Listeria, and OpenRefine, with focus on challenges of defining and modeling monuments. Some talks were about how to handle open versus strict definitions of monuments, differences across countries, and the importance of locally driven modeling guidelines. In other topic, updates from Uganda highlighted the efforts to centralize and structure Wikidata lists, while in Ukraine most monuments had been uploaded but with ongoing issues around coordinates, categories, and data protection in occupied areas. Both situations highlighted the need to find a middle ground between being open and protecting private information. Wider issues of governance were discussed as well, especially related to creating tools, securing funding, and how the Content Partnerships Hub could manage resources and objectives.

• Updates were given on the funding of the Helpdesk, and the lack of certainty.

It was said that no projects are urgent to realize, but that it is a good idea for the Helpdesk to be especially involved with Wiki Loves projects, as they have low barriers to entry meaning that supporting such projects is a great way of ensuring diversity within the movement and strengthening underserved communities.

• A general update on funding was given, and it was discussed how and if the Expert Committee could and should be involved in applications for funding.

It was also discussed how to support smaller questions that are received, such as direct technical questions or questions for documents that might be easily found etc. It was said that such questions should not be discussed in detail at each meeting, but that it would be enough if the Helpdesk reported during each meeting on smaller questions that had been received. It is still, for reporting and transparency purposes, important that such questions are tracked.

• On May 2023, the Expert Committee gave general updates and reviewed several requests. They advised a user on how to share 4,000 climate-related graphs on Commons despite limited metadata, noting this kind of coaching was valuable. The team also continued supporting Wiki Loves Earth with data work for new countries (Gabon, Benin, Serbia) following earlier successes, and discussed SMART Servier uploads, agreeing on manual Wikidata mappings and the need for clearer workflows, licensing guidance, and technical support. They also reconnected with another user on Wiki Loves Monuments and considered joint workshops with Let’s Connect to provide practical, reusable models for community organizers.

During the first three months of 2023, the Expert Committee concentrated on managing specific task while also considering its larger strategic function. The members evaluated the workings of the committee, recognizing the importance of having clearer guidelines and transforming individual assistance cases into knowledge that can be reused by the broader movement.

During their meetings, they pointed out initiatives like the incorporation of SMART Servier medical imagery and support for Wiki Loves Monuments, and discussed approaches to enhance technical abilities and improve documentation and processes. They also talked about how to deal with urgent tool failures, such as the breakdown of Baglama2, while emphasizing the need for the sustainability of community tools and the ethical issues related to handling intangible heritage information.

During the interval October–December, the committee moved from handling individual requests to shaping practices the whole movement could reuse. Is in this time that the members oversaw the final phases of the medical-image uploads, encouraging translation efforts, open publication of scripts, and a consistent template for Helpdesk-supported batches so future projects can replicate the workflow. They also advanced support for Wiki Loves Monuments by promoting Wikidata-based lists and exploring dynamic maps—while candidly weighing risks around contested regions and community safety, and suggesting coordination with mapping stakeholders. Requests around large file uploads prompted a broader push to document generalizable questions and answers, turn services into shared learning, and decide where such learning should live so it actually reaches practitioners.

This period also highlighted specific details regarding licensing and governance. A frequently addressed topic revolved around the connection between NC/ND materials and movement value, alongside a broader goal of steering partners towards licenses that are more aligned.

Several operational requests were reviewed, including guidance for a Wikimedian in Residence, Wikidata training for a national monuments list, and multiple Volunteer Response Team questions—handled with care where local conflicts existed and with an emphasis on capacity building over gatekeeping. Is during these meetings that also a new proposal to import national inventories for a "Wiki Loves Living Heritage" effort was well received in principle; potential ties to year-long programming and collaboration with cultural bodies were noted, with one participant recusing due to involvement.

During this quarter, the committee focused on defining the Helpdesk's responsibilities and how to manage a growing volume of inquiries. Members deliberated on how the Helpdesk could effectively integrate technical assistance with wider process support, emphasizing the necessity of engaging with areas where institutions may still have doubts about Wikipedia or possess limited understanding of open knowledge systems. During one of the meetings it was pointed out the importance of establishing organized, reproducible procedures and the benefits of gathering effective practices while guiding users toward available resources, instead of re-doing constantly existing work. To enhance internal communication, a specific chat channel was established, and externally, the team explored opportunities for presentations at regional conferences and wrote blog posts to share positive experiences and clarify their goals.

During this quarter, formal requests encompassed several initiatives, including the uploading of medical imagery from SMART Servier, negotiations concerning partnership agreements, and contributions to Wiki Loves Monuments, with a focus on integrating with Wikidata. There were intricate licensing dilemmas, notably regarding how to approach NC/ND content, which illustrated the overarching challenges encountered by affiliates and cultural organizations globally. Members of the Expert Committee pointed out that it was crucial to adopt context-aware strategies, particularly concerning the perspectives on open licensing from the Global South. Further requests involved support for Wikimedians located in Zagreb and Uganda, as well as inquiries related to the VRT process.

In June 2022, the initial gathering took place, and throughout the discussions, the Expert Committee considered its purpose within the Hub. They debated whether its emphasis should be on making decisions or facilitating processes. Committee members pointed out the importance of grouping requests into specific themes—like capacity building, advocacy, content uploads, and strategy—to enhance the effectiveness of their responses. They also noted the benefits of sharing knowledge among peers, regional partnerships, and learning from the strengths of affiliates. Additionally, they stressed the necessity for clearer assessments of needs, organized data on community issues, and improved communication systems—both internally through regular meetings and externally through outreach efforts.