Who Should Run Wikipedia Next?
Wikipedia’s future depends on making the right hire. What should the next WMF CEO look like?
In May, Wikimedia Foundation CEO Maryana Iskander announced via Axios interview she would step down from the role by January 2026. As she wrote in a note to staff, also posted to the WMF blog, the early notice was meant to provide a “long timeframe for a thoughtful, orderly, and deliberate transition.”
Publicly, there’s no named successor, no shortlist, nor any indication that an internal candidate has the inside track. Unofficially, Iskander and the Wikimedia Board of Trustees began succession planning in 2024, presumably to avoid the months-long leadership gap it experienced during the 2021–2 transition from previous CEO Katherine Maher.
Sometime in the next six months, we’ll find out who the board thinks has the right stuff. Until then, we speculate. Doing its part, The Wikipedian reached out to more than thirty individuals from across the Wikimedia movement—volunteer editors, affiliate members, and a few around the WMF itself—with an off-the-record question: what qualities should the next CEO have?
Around a third got back to me in the past week, and this post is the result of what they told me.
The first thing that stands out is Iskander’s tenure is generally viewed as a success, counting both her personal leadership qualities and actual performance. Three years isn’t really long enough time to truly put a stamp on an organization, but among those who offered an opinion, impressions were positive.
She assembled a capable C-team, worked well with the board, listened to stakeholders, and promoted a stable organization. One person in a position to know praised her for not trying to play the hero, instead focusing on building systems and empowering staff.
Unsurprisingly, all wanted more of this: a competent facilitator with an eye on the long view—not on their next gig. The Wikipedian heard no calls for a visionary, just someone who helps others do their jobs well.
But is the Wikimedia Foundation doing the right job?
To some, the WMF has simply become too large, bureaucratic, and detached from the community it exists to serve. These concerns often turn on the Foundation’s remarkably successful fundraising—for both its tactics and the resulting stockpile. While perhaps easily dismissed as ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, there’s more than one level to this critique.
First is about the alarmist tone of its year-end banner ads, which may trick readers into thinking the site is in financial trouble when it absolutely is not. They’re squicky at best, but then a few years ago they tried it the other way and the ads tanked, so that’s apparently that.
Second is how it uses its considerable largesse. The WMF raises and spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year but, as they say in Hollywood, you can’t always see the money on the screen. And what is the point of a $100 million-plus endowment, if a fundraising shortfall means staff cutbacks?
Still the WMF has more than 700 staff and contractors spread across dozens of teams distributed around the globe, many of whom, with respect, have little to do with why Wikipedia really matters (sorry). Perhaps credit where due, the WMF did dramatically downsize its San Francisco office space in late 2024—only a slight laggard in downtown real estate trends.
One longtime community member floated an idea The Wikipedian has also raised in the past: the Foundation should scale down drastically, focus on core functions—technology, legal, administration—and shift toward a grantmaking model that empowers smaller, more nimble affiliates and nonprofits to try new things. Maybe bigger isn’t always better.
Another way of looking at what kind of leader the WMF needs is to consider the challenges it faces today.
One correspondent pointed out that previous WMF leaders were chosen to address specific problems at points in its history. The first Executive Director—the title until 2021—was Brad Patrick, also its general counsel, when first it needed to file paperwork. The WMF’s longest-tenured ED was Sue Gardner, a journalist, who helped Wikipedia establish its credibility. Lila Tretikov, a technologist, was tapped to improve its tech stack. Katherine Maher, a communications officer, was promoted when Tretikov’s efforts to develop a search engine produced a staff revolt. Iskander, an NGO executive, promised drama-free leadership and largely delivered.
Were we ever so young? The stakes feel a bit higher now.
Two challenges stand above the rest: generative AI, which now competes with Wikipedia for public attention, and an increasingly hostile political environment—in the U.S. obviously, but also in the UK and India—posing new threats to open knowledge projects.
While nearly everyone agreed on the primacy of these two issues, views diverged on which mattered more, and what could or should be done about either, including by the next CEO. No one thinks the path forward is obvious.
One insider argued WMF’s relevance is at risk—ChatGPT recently passed Wikipedia in global traffic btw—and suggested a leader from Big Tech was needed to address it. Another argued that WMF missed the boat by not helping to make Wikimedia content accessible in formats beyond traditional encyclopedia articles—like video and short-form media. Several voiced concerns about hiring from Silicon Valley at all, though this view was not universal. Others warned against swinging too hard in any one direction.
No one called for a CEO with a political background, although one veteran editor suggested the WMF would be wise to prepare for the possibility of relocating outside the U.S. if political conditions continue on their current path.
Yet another way to answer the CEO question is to consider the actual professional experience and leadership traits desired.
Recurring themes included international experience, cultural fluency, ability to manage large organizations, and a capacity for humility. Backgrounds in international NGOs or legacy institutions were seen as promising. (It was hard to miss that the ideal leader being described is Iskander herself.)
Among all these conversations, just one serious name came up: Megan Smith, former U.S. CTO under Obama. Notwithstanding the political connections and lack of international exposure, Smith would bring technical expertise, business leadership, and foundation experience.
Inevitably, another recurring theme was the Wikimedia Foundation’s relationship with the Wikimedia community, and what the next CEO could do to change that. Skepticism ran deep—not just among core Wikipedia editors, but even among Wikimedians with formal ties to affiliates and outside institutions—that the WMF fully understands or supports their contributions. As well, some in the former group felt that those without affiliate status or regular conference attendance are excluded from important discussions.
Could the next CEO actually come from within the community? No one thought this was likely. The scale and complexity of the WMF’s operations demand experience and skills no one in the Wikimedia community is considered to possess.
The real challenge facing the next CEO is that Wikipedia isn’t one thing, but many things at once. It’s a volunteer project, an editorial enterprise, a tech platform, and a global nonprofit. The needs of each sometimes conflict, and the WMF may never fully reconcile these internal contractions. Yet they linger, unspoken, in the question of who should lead next.
No one can be everything to everyone. But the next CEO must build trust across constituencies and somehow help the WMF find itself. They’ll inherit an organization whose flagship project remains vital but feels vulnerable. AI depends on Wikipedia but also threatens to displace it. Wikipedia still represents the “last bastion of shared reality”, but that too feels shaky right now.
Whoever gets the nod, they’ll be taking on one of the hardest jobs in the nonprofit sector. Think you have what it takes? Read the job posting and submit your application here.