Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/Committee review process and framework

How are General Support Fund proposals reviewed for Wikimedia Community Fund?

The Wikimedia Foundation Funds exist to support the strategic direction of the movement. We want to build a relationship of partnership with all of the people and organizations that are supported through these programs. For this reason, it is important to explain the review process within the new Funds strategy.  Partners in the process: Applicants, Community Resources regional program officers and Regional Funds Committees.

The General Support Fund is being reviewed with the new Regional Funds Committees. These committees are decentralised and participatory decision-making bodies, composed of experienced and newer community members, and organised in 8 regions. For more information about the Regional Committee process and its current members see: Grants:Committees.

Our goal is to work with each applicant to explain decisions clearly. In the event the recommendation is to not fund the proposal as submitted we are committed to working with the applicant to ensure they understand what would be needed in the future and to support them in that journey.

Overview of the review process


A brief overview of the review process:

  • Applicant submission: Applicants submit their proposal through the new grantee portal, these are available on Meta for general community review and comments.
  • Due diligence: The Community Resources team organises the proposals and supporting documents for committee review. These supporting documents include any additional documents the applicants included in their proposal, such as strategic or annual plans, as well as background information about the organisation prepared by Program Officers based on several sources of information: such as Affiliate reports and surveys, review of past qualitative and quantitative results (from grant reporting), budget and staff growth, etc.
  • Regional Committee review: Committee members take some time to review these proposals and supporting documents individually based on a series of criteria and questions. The categories and questions that can be reviewed below.
  • Initial feedback : During this phase, committees may publish questions on meta so that applicants can clarify any aspects of their proposal. Community members in general may also be posting comments, questions or feedback that applicants should respond to via meta.
  • Structured feedback from Regional Committee: The whole committee meets to discuss each project to consolidate a unified feedback document that will be sent to applicants. This feedback may include suggestions for adjustments in certain areas of the proposal or questions around issues that were unclear and the committee would like to understand further to review the proposal.
  • Staff feedback shared with committee: At this stage Program Officers also share their Staff review of each proposal with Committee members. This analysis seeks to offer additional information or insights about the proposal based on Program Officers engagement with applicants throughout the process, but also other Foundation staff knowledge around thematic areas and learning from other programs and experiences. This may include analysis about the organizational growth and impact over time, the clarity of their approach and strategies, their staff and budget distribution, etc. Committees should feel ownership of the decision and be empowered to question and use the analysis from Foundation Staff as another perspective.
  • Committee/Applicant meetings: In certain cases, committee members may request a live session with the applicants to discuss this feedback and ask questions. Program Officers may also organise these spaces to provide applicants with support to review this feedback.
  • Applicant responses and revisions: Applicants have a set time to make necessary adjustments or clarifications. These should be done directly on Fluxx as the final proposal.
  • Deliberations: Committee members hold a second round of formal deliberation sessions to make their final decisions on the funding. In this stage they take into consideration all the recommendations and adjustments, as well as the overall budget for the region. In the final Committee recommendation, some further recommendations may be made to applicants to support their implementation work, or for future proposal development.
  • Committee funding decision and remarks: The applicants are informed of the funding decision via email, Fluxx and Meta and, if approved, begin the grant administration process.

The Regional Fund Committees use the following framework for the proposal review

Review resources


Useful resources used during review and decision-making:

General Support Fund – Proposal review framework tool


This short tool intends to support proposal reviewers to understand and apply the review criteria by connecting the review framework with the application flow.

It also seeks to consolidate and organize your thought process to prepare for fund deliberation discussions. Your program officer may also use/ share consolidated responses with the wider committee. Please compose your comments as though you are directly addressing the applicant, so that your feedback can more easily be incorporated into recommendations to be posted on the applicant talk page later on. Please be mindful that the clarity of your comments and suggestions can help your fellow committee members, as well as applicants, to read through the consolidated analysis. You can also provide some concrete examples that may help the applicant make the necessary clarifications or adjustments.

Application title:

Grantee name:

Grant ID number (filled by Program Officer):

Corresponding Questions in the application form corresponding to these aspects: Main Aspect Evaluation criteria Yes No Unclear, follow up-question is needed
5, 6, 8, 9 Value for knowledge equity impact:

Involvement of underrepresented groups or contributions of underrepresented content about, e.g.:

  • women
  • people with disabilities
  • neurodiverse people
  • indigenous groups
  • LGBTQ+ groups
  • people from lower socioeconomic status
  • caste-oppressed communities
  • youth
  • speakers of minority languages
  • underrepresented geographical regions (ESEAP, LATAM, SSA, MENA, SA)
Knowledge equity dimension is appropriately considered in the activities, content or target groups.
5, 6, 8, 9 Value for the volunteer community Practices have included the community of volunteers in the planning, implementation and reflections on the project are demonstrated well, or some form of community endorsement for the work suggested is present.
Measures to maintain or improve community health, safety, and inclusivity are considered.
Feedback from the community on how the project impacted them (e.g. their work, skills or capacities) has been or will be collected and will inform the next strategy or program planning.
Activities to recruit or retain volunteers are included.
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15 Value for the movement Proposed activities and strategies are clear and respond well to the challenges presented.
Cooperations and partnerships are built that have the potential to upscale thematic areas / large scale campaigns / transfer to other regions and contexts, or provide synergies in activities of different groups.
Valuable transferable methodologies, tactics, or strategies are applied (e.g. in a thematic area or in community revitalization).
13 Activities are in line with the 2030 Movement Strategy Recommendations and initiatives.
If answered “No” or “Unclear”, do you have specific actionable recommendations to implement in the proposal or clarifying questions connected to the values the proposal brings:
14, 15 Feasibility of the proposed work The proposed scale and significance of the contributions are realistic, and are a result of the project (would not have materialized otherwise and demonstrate no duplication of effort/overlap with other similar projects and other communities’ activities).
10 The timeline of the delivery demonstrates feasibility.
11, 12 The capacity and role of involved team members, volunteers, subcontractors and external partners are clear and demonstrate the extent to which the implementing team as a whole brings together the necessary expertise.
16-22 Budget: the planned implementation of revenues and expenses is reasonable, justified, and reflects sustainability.
If answered “No” or “Unclear”, do you have specific actionable recommendations to implement in the proposal or clarifying questions connected to the feasibility of the proposal:
Overall strengths (or if grantee is returning, positive changes / improvements / welcomed organizational developments (e.g. in governance, financial management, or transparency practices) we see: Overall Recommendations / Opportunities Seen:
Follow-up / Clarifying questions for Meta, if any:
Initial funding recommendation, if already clear:
  • Full funding
  • Partial funding, recommended % or amount of funding: ______________
  • No funding
  • No decision at this time, discussion is needed
  • No decision at this time, a meeting with the grantee is needed

See also