Википедија:Трг/Други
Vote now in the 2025 U4C Election
[уреди | уреди извор]Apologies for writing in English. Помозите у превођењу на свој језик
Eligible voters are asked to participate in the 2025 Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee election. More information–including an eligibility check, voting process information, candidate information, and a link to the vote–are available on Meta at the 2025 Election information page. The vote closes on 17 June 2025 at 12:00 UTC.
Please vote if your account is eligible. Results will be available by 1 July 2025. -- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk) 01:01, 14. јун 2025. (CEST)Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2025 - Call for Candidates
[уреди | уреди извор]Hello all,
The call for candidates for the 2025 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection is now open from June 17, 2025 – July 2, 2025 at 11:59 UTC [1]. The Board of Trustees oversees the Wikimedia Foundation's work, and each Trustee serves a three-year term [2]. This is a volunteer position.
This year, the Wikimedia community will vote in late August through September 2025 to fill two (2) seats on the Foundation Board. Could you – or someone you know – be a good fit to join the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees? [3]
Learn more about what it takes to stand for these leadership positions and how to submit your candidacy on this Meta-wiki page or encourage someone else to run in this year's election.
Best regards,
Abhishek Suryawanshi
Chair of the Elections Committee
On behalf of the Elections Committee and Governance Committee
[2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal:Bylaws#(B)_Term.
MediaWiki message delivery (разговор) 19:44, 17. јун 2025. (CEST)
Proposal to enable the "Contribute" entry point in Serbian Wikipedia
[уреди | уреди извор]Здраво Serbian Wikipedians,
Apologies as this message is not in your language. Помозите у превођењу на свој језик.
The WMF Language and Product Localization team proposes to enable an entry point called "Contribute" menu in your Wikipedia. The "Contribute" menu is a central place where editors can discover and access all contribution tools available in your Wikipedia.
Having this entry point is inspired by collaborative efforts with product teams at the Wikimedia Foundation, grounded in our research on Edit discovery. This research validated the idea of a dedicated entry point, revealing it as a consistent pathway for contributors to find ways to contribute content.
Enabling this entry point will help new contributors quickly discover the tools available to them, allowing them to start using the tools right away. This proposed enablement will include support for a small set of contribution tools, but the menu is designed to be extensible and more tools will be added over time. Below is important information about the "Contribute" menu.
Who Can Access It?
Once enabled, newcomers will automatically have access to this entry point by logging into their accounts. They can find the "Contribute" tab in the User drop-down menu, which will take them to another menu featuring a self-guided tab that outlines how they can contribute content, as shown in the image below.
.png)
What else can be accessed from the "Contribute" Menu?
In addition to the self-guided tabs that newcomers can click on to explore contribution tools, the menu will also include an option to "View contributions", allowing newcomers to see a list of their contributions so far.
Will this replace the "Contributions" tab for experienced contributors?
No, the "Contribute" tab on the User drop-down menu will not replace your existing "Contributions" tab. Experienced contributors will not see the "Contribute" tab in their User drop-down menu unless they choose to access it manually through Special:Contribute.
Where else is this menu enabled?
This entry point is currently available on over 245 Wikipedias. We have received valuable feedback from contributors to some of these Wikipedias, which has helped us enhance their discoverability. One key improvement has been to make the entry point optional for experienced contributors who still prefer the default "Contributions" tab.
Will new contributors on desktop and mobile devices have access to the Contribute menu?
The "Contribute" menu will only be available to mobile users accessing Wikipedia through a browser at this initial stage. We will limit its exposure to mobile browser users only for now.
Will this change the configuration of tools in our Wikipedia?
The configuration of tools accessible through the "Contribute" menu will remain unchanged. For instance, if the Content Translation tool is restricted to specific users in your Wikipedia, it will still be inaccessible to newcomers even if they click it from the "Contribute" menu.
Why can't I see all the available tools in the "Contribute" menu in the Wikipedias where it is currently enabled?
As time goes on, other tools will become available in the "Contribute", both new and old ones.
When Will It Be Enabled in Our Wiki?
If there are no objections from your Wikipedia by July 18, 2025, we plan to deploy the "Contribute" entry point.
We welcome your feedback and questions regarding this proposal to enable the "Contribute" menu on Serbian Wikipedia. We look forward to your response. Thank you!
UOzurumba (WMF) (разговор) 05:14, 24. јун 2025. (CEST) On behalf of the Language and Product Localization team.
Concerns regarding @Боки's conduct on enwiki
[уреди | уреди извор]I am sorry that this is in English, I was asked to post my concerns here by @Novak Watchmen. Feel free to translate or transcribe my text into the local language and move it to the relevant forum. I can also respond to questions if asked in English.
Recently, @Боки, a checkuser on Serbian Wikipedia created their own company and appears to be taking commissions for Wikipedia contributions. They have created two articles on English Wikipedia that appear to have been paid for by the company (to their credit they have disclosed this on the talk pages as required by the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use, though they failed to follow WP:COIEDIT the English Wikipedia specific policies related to creating new articles as a paid editor). The two articles BetterSleep and Sleep app were directly published into mainspace, both have/had made up references, references with misleading titles and also some of which are taken from paid-for ad placements by news agencies. (See this discussion thread at a global RFC). All this was done during their tenure as a Serbian Wikipedia checkuser.
Given these concerns, I would like to urge that the Serbian Wikipedia community scrutinize @Боки actions on Serbian Wikipedia post their employment at Brisk Web Services to check if they have promoting anything and to determine if their cross-wiki actions are compatible with them holding the Checkuser right on Serbian Wikipedia (a right that allows you to view non-public-data and is often used cross-wiki to catch other people doing undisclosed paid editing). — Sohom Datta (разговор) 15:25, 27. јун 2025. (CEST)
Коментар: Greetings and welcome @Sohom Datta:. I fully understand your concerns. However, we have never encountered such an issue or a moral dilemma, if you will. Therefore, the necessary rules or guidelines that would help us deal with the aforementioned conundrum do not exist, which effectively renders any such move moot. It’s your decision if you want to deal with this on en.wp; we are a different wiki system, and the editor will not lose his rights, but I’m sure that some of the colleagues have already discussed this with him, in great detail. Best. — Садко (ријечи су вјетар) 01:35, 30. јун 2025. (CEST)
- @Sadko I understand that there are no pre-existing rules on this matter (tbh, because there is a lack to precedent which is why I started a global RFC at Requests_for_comment/Should_paid_editing_as_a_CU_be_allowed), however, a refusal to publicly discuss/amend policy strikes me as a odd stance to take here. You say that this behaviour has already been discussed with Boki, could link to a few instances where this behavior has already been discussed onwiki. — Sohom Datta (разговор) 01:44, 30. јун 2025. (CEST)
- It is not odd, because I’m the first editor responding to your request; therefore, it’s too early to draw any conclusions. If someone wants to discuss any given policy, they are free to do so. I myself have more pressing matters. I, for one, would like to see how your RfC fares, and then we’ll see about our next steps. That is much wiser than jumping the gun, which might affect one of our seasoned editors. I believe that checkusers can communicate via other channels, just like on any other wiki... I’ve said my piece about this issue, and I’ll let other editors weigh in, if they wish to do so. Take care. — Садко (ријечи су вјетар) 01:56, 30. јун 2025. (CEST)
- Oh, makes sense I misinterpreted what you said! — Sohom Datta (разговор) 01:58, 30. јун 2025. (CEST)
- It is not odd, because I’m the first editor responding to your request; therefore, it’s too early to draw any conclusions. If someone wants to discuss any given policy, they are free to do so. I myself have more pressing matters. I, for one, would like to see how your RfC fares, and then we’ll see about our next steps. That is much wiser than jumping the gun, which might affect one of our seasoned editors. I believe that checkusers can communicate via other channels, just like on any other wiki... I’ve said my piece about this issue, and I’ll let other editors weigh in, if they wish to do so. Take care. — Садко (ријечи су вјетар) 01:56, 30. јун 2025. (CEST)
Follow-up on the above
[уреди | уреди извор]
Напомена: This comment is a follow-up from نوفاك اتشمان asking me on Meta to share my remarks here.
The situation above has led to a fair bit more discussion on Meta-Wiki at meta:Requests for comment/Self-promoting Корисник:Боки on sr.wikipedia. While undisclosed paid editing by Боки has indeed been previously discussed locally (here and at Википедија:Администраторска_табла/Архива_48#Плаћени_доприноси), the issue of cross-wiki UPE is something that would more constructively be discussed on Meta, especially since it involved advanced permissions and access to non-public information. This is especially the case since multiple discussions here have been summarily closed with an indication that it was either being discussed through private channels, or not seen as a major issue by other administrators. While off-wiki private channels can be used by CheckUsers, the intent is to protect non-public information which they might have to discuss, and not to refrain from public accountability of their own behavior. The way in which paid editing is being dismissed is worrying when seen under the lens of the UCoC (notably points 3.2.1 and 3.3.2), and certainly warrants further discussion at a more systemic level. Chaotic Enby (разговор) 20:32, 8. јул 2025. (CEST)
- Been looking at a few edits, [1] (and similarly on enwiki [2]) seems like a weird set of edits where @Боки turned a mostly netural-to-positive article into a PR billboard. — Sohom Datta (разговор) 15:29, 10. јул 2025. (CEST)
- [3] on enwiki is a extremely promotional edit to a article whoes subject has ties with Ringier Media (with whom Boki claims to have worked to improve their SEO profile) — Sohom Datta (разговор) 16:17, 10. јул 2025. (CEST)
- I’ve already openly expressed my criticism on this issue and have actively worked to remove most of the positive or promotional undertones, as demonstrated here. Therefore, the claim that "the local wiki community is ignoring the issues" doesn't hold up. Ty. — Садко (ријечи су вјетар) 18:00, 10. јул 2025. (CEST)
- Your reply to my first call-to-action was explicitly dismissive: It’s your decision if you want to deal with this on en.wp; we are a different wiki system, and the editor will not lose his rights,. Also, the fact that I had to go digging to find these instances (one of which, AikBank still has had no action taken) instead of the srwiki community themselves doing the investigation/scrutiny (as I had clearly asked for in my initial statement) signals a inability to properly deal with the clear conduct issue of cross-wiki promotion/SEO. — Sohom Datta (разговор) 18:40, 10. јул 2025. (CEST)
- This isn’t dismissiveness, it’s just my honest opinion. To date (or at that time), no direct report was made here, which is a fact you seem to be disregarding. Given that some sysops were handling death threats, other matters were understandably deprioritized, and yes, mistakes may have happened, it's possible. It’s easy to take the moral high ground when you don’t have the full picture. By the way, did you reach out to this editor directly, or attempt to resolve the issue on EWP or Meta and what's the result? — Садко (ријечи су вјетар) 19:16, 10. јул 2025. (CEST)
- meta:Requests for comment/Self-promoting Корисник:Боки on sr.wikipedia is open on meta wiki, on enwiki, their articles have been AFDed by other folks and they have been made aware of their conduct by other editors, through reversion and comments. Their response has been lacklustre at best, and evasive at worst (given what has been found since). As CE points out, the conduct issues were brought up here as well, they have been pinged by my initial post and their conduct was discussed at Википедија:Администраторска_табла/Архива_48#Плаћени_доприноси and the response from admins can be literally summed up by "dont worry about it", "they know what they are doing" and "dont overexaggerate" when they admitted to clear UCoC and terms of use violations. I'm not taking the moral high ground, I am busy as well, and do deal with threats of violence from LTAs on a semi-regular basis on enwiki however, it's close to two weeks since my initial call-to-action. The only response received was you saying "this is moot and shouldnt be worried about" -- How am I supposed to interpret this other than "dismissive" ? — Sohom Datta (разговор) 19:29, 10. јул 2025. (CEST)
- That’s not what I said, but you're free to interpret it as you wish, at your own responsibility. I have clearly and unequivocally condemned such behavior, but I won’t block the editor in question without a clear consensus, as is the standard on all projects. Any violations should be reported at ВП:АТ, since this is not the appropriate venue for such matters, nor has it ever been. To my knowledge, no report has been filed; had there been one, I’m confident appropriate action would have been taken. You’re welcome to file a report yourself if you believe it’s warranted - but please don’t claim you’re being ‘ignored’ when the issue hasn’t been raised through the proper channels, especially during a time when many users are less active due to summer. — Садко (ријечи су вјетар) 00:55, 11. јул 2025. (CEST)
- See, it would have been nice to have been told that upfront instead of having to go through this ringmarole. I will raise it at ВП:АТ just in case. Please keep in mind that I am new to the Serbian community and my command of Serbian is non-existent (outside of Google Translate and friends) and I say so in my initial comment and on the meta wiki post. You or the other administrators need to guide folks otherwise we end up yelling into the void. — Sohom Datta (разговор) 01:23, 11. јул 2025. (CEST)
- Thanks a lot for the explanation. As Sohom and I have previously noted, a report was previously made at ВП:АТ, and was mostly ignored. What do you recommend @Sohom Datta should do differently if he was to file another report there? Chaotic Enby (разговор) 15:16, 12. јул 2025. (CEST)
- There was no consensus and/or it passed under the radar, as far as I can tell. You can file a detailed report with diffs at ВП:АТ and we’ll take it from there. — Садко (ријечи су вјетар) 21:23, 12. јул 2025. (CEST)
- Thanks a lot for the explanation. As Sohom and I have previously noted, a report was previously made at ВП:АТ, and was mostly ignored. What do you recommend @Sohom Datta should do differently if he was to file another report there? Chaotic Enby (разговор) 15:16, 12. јул 2025. (CEST)
- See, it would have been nice to have been told that upfront instead of having to go through this ringmarole. I will raise it at ВП:АТ just in case. Please keep in mind that I am new to the Serbian community and my command of Serbian is non-existent (outside of Google Translate and friends) and I say so in my initial comment and on the meta wiki post. You or the other administrators need to guide folks otherwise we end up yelling into the void. — Sohom Datta (разговор) 01:23, 11. јул 2025. (CEST)
- That’s not what I said, but you're free to interpret it as you wish, at your own responsibility. I have clearly and unequivocally condemned such behavior, but I won’t block the editor in question without a clear consensus, as is the standard on all projects. Any violations should be reported at ВП:АТ, since this is not the appropriate venue for such matters, nor has it ever been. To my knowledge, no report has been filed; had there been one, I’m confident appropriate action would have been taken. You’re welcome to file a report yourself if you believe it’s warranted - but please don’t claim you’re being ‘ignored’ when the issue hasn’t been raised through the proper channels, especially during a time when many users are less active due to summer. — Садко (ријечи су вјетар) 00:55, 11. јул 2025. (CEST)
- meta:Requests for comment/Self-promoting Корисник:Боки on sr.wikipedia is open on meta wiki, on enwiki, their articles have been AFDed by other folks and they have been made aware of their conduct by other editors, through reversion and comments. Their response has been lacklustre at best, and evasive at worst (given what has been found since). As CE points out, the conduct issues were brought up here as well, they have been pinged by my initial post and their conduct was discussed at Википедија:Администраторска_табла/Архива_48#Плаћени_доприноси and the response from admins can be literally summed up by "dont worry about it", "they know what they are doing" and "dont overexaggerate" when they admitted to clear UCoC and terms of use violations. I'm not taking the moral high ground, I am busy as well, and do deal with threats of violence from LTAs on a semi-regular basis on enwiki however, it's close to two weeks since my initial call-to-action. The only response received was you saying "this is moot and shouldnt be worried about" -- How am I supposed to interpret this other than "dismissive" ? — Sohom Datta (разговор) 19:29, 10. јул 2025. (CEST)
- This isn’t dismissiveness, it’s just my honest opinion. To date (or at that time), no direct report was made here, which is a fact you seem to be disregarding. Given that some sysops were handling death threats, other matters were understandably deprioritized, and yes, mistakes may have happened, it's possible. It’s easy to take the moral high ground when you don’t have the full picture. By the way, did you reach out to this editor directly, or attempt to resolve the issue on EWP or Meta and what's the result? — Садко (ријечи су вјетар) 19:16, 10. јул 2025. (CEST)
- Your reply to my first call-to-action was explicitly dismissive: It’s your decision if you want to deal with this on en.wp; we are a different wiki system, and the editor will not lose his rights,. Also, the fact that I had to go digging to find these instances (one of which, AikBank still has had no action taken) instead of the srwiki community themselves doing the investigation/scrutiny (as I had clearly asked for in my initial statement) signals a inability to properly deal with the clear conduct issue of cross-wiki promotion/SEO. — Sohom Datta (разговор) 18:40, 10. јул 2025. (CEST)
- I’ve already openly expressed my criticism on this issue and have actively worked to remove most of the positive or promotional undertones, as demonstrated here. Therefore, the claim that "the local wiki community is ignoring the issues" doesn't hold up. Ty. — Садко (ријечи су вјетар) 18:00, 10. јул 2025. (CEST)
- [3] on enwiki is a extremely promotional edit to a article whoes subject has ties with Ringier Media (with whom Boki claims to have worked to improve their SEO profile) — Sohom Datta (разговор) 16:17, 10. јул 2025. (CEST)
Sister Projects Task Force reviews Wikispore and Wikinews
[уреди | уреди извор]Dear Wikimedia Community,
The Community Affairs Committee (CAC) of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees assigned the Sister Projects Task Force (SPTF) to update and implement a procedure for assessing the lifecycle of Sister Projects – wiki projects supported by Wikimedia Foundation (WMF).
A vision of relevant, accessible, and impactful free knowledge has always guided the Wikimedia Movement. As the ecosystem of Wikimedia projects continues to evolve, it is crucial that we periodically review existing projects to ensure they still align with our goals and community capacity.
Despite their noble intent, some projects may no longer effectively serve their original purpose. Reviewing such projects is not about giving up – it's about responsible stewardship of shared resources. Volunteer time, staff support, infrastructure, and community attention are finite, and the non-technical costs tend to grow significantly as our ecosystem has entered a different age of the internet than the one we were founded in. Supporting inactive projects or projects that didn't meet our ambitions can unintentionally divert these resources from areas with more potential impact.
Moreover, maintaining projects that no longer reflect the quality and reliability of the Wikimedia name stands for, involves a reputational risk. An abandoned or less reliable project affects trust in the Wikimedia movement.
Lastly, failing to sunset or reimagine projects that are no longer working can make it much harder to start new ones. When the community feels bound to every past decision – no matter how outdated – we risk stagnation. A healthy ecosystem must allow for evolution, adaptation, and, when necessary, letting go. If we create the expectation that every project must exist indefinitely, we limit our ability to experiment and innovate.
Because of this, SPTF reviewed two requests concerning the lifecycle of the Sister Projects to work through and demonstrate the review process. We chose Wikispore as a case study for a possible new Sister Project opening and Wikinews as a case study for a review of an existing project. Preliminary findings were discussed with the CAC, and a community consultation on both proposals was recommended.
Wikispore
[уреди | уреди извор]The application to consider Wikispore was submitted in 2019. SPTF decided to review this request in more depth because rather than being concentrated on a specific topic, as most of the proposals for the new Sister Projects are, Wikispore has the potential to nurture multiple start-up Sister Projects.
After careful consideration, the SPTF has decided not to recommend Wikispore as a Wikimedia Sister Project. Considering the current activity level, the current arrangement allows better flexibility and experimentation while WMF provides core infrastructural support.
We acknowledge the initiative's potential and seek community input on what would constitute a sufficient level of activity and engagement to reconsider its status in the future.
As part of the process, we shared the decision with the Wikispore community and invited one of its leaders, Pharos, to an SPTF meeting.
Currently, we especially invite feedback on measurable criteria indicating the project's readiness, such as contributor numbers, content volume, and sustained community support. This would clarify the criteria sufficient for opening a new Sister Project, including possible future Wikispore re-application. However, the numbers will always be a guide because any number can be gamed.
Wikinews
[уреди | уреди извор]We chose to review Wikinews among existing Sister Projects because it is the one for which we have observed the highest level of concern in multiple ways.
Since the SPTF was convened in 2023, its members have asked for the community's opinions during conferences and community calls about Sister Projects that did not fulfil their promise in the Wikimedia movement.[1][2][3] Wikinews was the leading candidate for an evaluation because people from multiple language communities proposed it. Additionally, by most measures, it is the least active Sister Project, with the greatest drop in activity over the years.
While the Language Committee routinely opens and closes language versions of the Sister Projects in small languages, there has never been a valid proposal to close Wikipedia in major languages or any project in English. This is not true for Wikinews, where there was a proposal to close English Wikinews, which gained some traction but did not result in any action[4][5], see section 5 as well as a draft proposal to close all languages of Wikinews[6].
Initial metrics compiled by WMF staff also support the community's concerns about Wikinews.
Based on this report, SPTF recommends a community reevaluation of Wikinews. We conclude that its current structure and activity levels are the lowest among the existing sister projects. SPTF also recommends pausing the opening of new language editions while the consultation runs.
SPTF brings this analysis to a discussion and welcomes discussions of alternative outcomes, including potential restructuring efforts or integration with other Wikimedia initiatives.
Options mentioned so far (which might be applied to just low-activity languages or all languages) include but are not limited to:
- Restructure how Wikinews works and is linked to other current events efforts on the projects,
- Merge the content of Wikinews into the relevant language Wikipedias, possibly in a new namespace,
- Merge content into compatibly licensed external projects,
- Archive Wikinews projects.
Your insights and perspectives are invaluable in shaping the future of these projects. We encourage all interested community members to share their thoughts on the relevant discussion pages or through other designated feedback channels.
Feedback and next steps
[уреди | уреди извор]We'd be grateful if you want to take part in a conversation on the future of these projects and the review process. We are setting up two different project pages: Public consultation about Wikispore and Public consultation about Wikinews. Please participate between 27 June 2025 and 27 July 2025, after which we will summarize the discussion to move forward. You can write in your own language.
I will also host a community conversation 16th July Wednesday 11.00 UTC and 17th July Thursday 17.00 UTC (call links to follow shortly) and will be around at Wikimania for more discussions.
-- Victoria on behalf of the Sister Project Task Force, 22:57, 27. јун 2025. (CEST)
Have your say: vote for the 2025 Board of Trustees
[уреди | уреди извор]Hello all,
The voting period for the 2025 Board of Trustees election is now open. Candidates are running for two (2) seats on the Board.
To check your voter eligibility, please visit the voter eligibility page.
Learn more about them by reading their application statements and watch their candidacy videos.
When you are ready, go to the SecurePoll voting page to vote.
The vote is open from October 8 at 00:00 UTC to October 22 at 23:59 UTC.
Best regards,
Abhishek Suryawanshi
Chair, Elections Committee
MediaWiki message delivery (разговор) 06:48, 9. октобар 2025. (CEST)
Help us decide the name of the new Abstract Wikipedia project
[уреди | уреди извор]Здраво. Please help pick a name for the new Abstract Wikipedia wiki project. This project will be a wiki that will enable users to combine functions from Wikifunctions and data from Wikidata in order to generate natural language sentences in any supported languages. These sentences can then be used by any Wikipedia (or elsewhere).
There will be two rounds of voting, each followed by legal review of candidates, with votes beginning on 20 October and 17 November 2025. Our goal is to have a final project name selected on mid-December 2025. If you would like to participate, then please learn more and vote now at meta-wiki. Хвала вам!
-- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 13:43, 20. октобар 2025. (CEST)
Seeking volunteers to join several of the movement’s committees
[уреди | уреди извор]Each year, typically from October through December, several of the movement’s committees seek new volunteers.
Read more about the committees on their Meta-wiki pages:
Applications for the committees open on October 30, 2025. Applications for the Affiliations Committee, Ombuds commission and the Case Review Committee close on December 11, 2025. Learn how to apply by visiting the appointment page on Meta-wiki. Post to the talk page or email cst
wikimedia.org with any questions you may have.
For the Committee Support team,
- MKaur (WMF) 15:13, 30. октобар 2025. (CET)
Join the CEE Hub staff team – We’re hiring a Program Specialist
[уреди | уреди извор]Hi everyone,
The regional CEE Hub is looking for a Program Specialist to join our staff team!
Are you someone experienced with Wikimedia who wants to help volunteers? Do you participate in Wiki Loves… and other related projects, and do you have ideas and skills to help others improve their efforts? Do you enjoy working with people from different countries? Are you able to work on your own, feel comfortable on Meta-Wiki, and understand how Meta works? If this sounds like you and you're interested in working with the CEE hub team, we’d love to hear from you!
As a Program Specialist, you will:
- Support affiliates and communities in developing and implementing impactful programs,
- Strengthen regional cooperation and cross-border projects,
- Help guide campaigns and initiatives across the CEE region,
- Work closely with the CEE Hub team and community members.
This is a part-time (0.8–0.9 full-time equivalent), remote position open to candidates based in the CEE region or nearby time zones.
APPLICATION DEADLINE: NOVEMBER 10, 2025 ➡️ Learn more and learn how to apply on Meta: Wikimedia CEE Hub – Program Specialist ⬅️
If you know someone who would be a great fit, please share this opportunity with them!