Wikipedia isn’t run by a single CEO or a corporate board. It’s governed by its own community - millions of volunteers who edit, debate, and vote on who gets to lead. The election cycles for key roles like the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) and the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees are some of the most important, yet least understood, parts of how Wikipedia stays free and open. If you’ve ever wondered how someone becomes an arbitrator or how the Board gets chosen, here’s how it actually works.
What Is ArbCom and Why Does It Matter?
The Arbitration Committee, or ArbCom, is Wikipedia’s highest dispute resolution body. Think of it as a court for editors who can’t agree. When fights over edits, bans, or behavior spiral out of control, users can petition ArbCom for a ruling. These aren’t just opinions - ArbCom decisions can result in site bans, editing restrictions, or even the removal of user rights.
ArbCom members aren’t appointed. They’re elected. Every year, the community votes on candidates who’ve proven they understand Wikipedia’s policies, stay calm under pressure, and have a track record of fair mediation. Candidates usually have years of experience as administrators, stewards, or dispute mediators. The election lasts about two weeks. Voting is open to registered users who’ve made at least 500 edits and have been active for at least six months. That’s not just a formality - it’s designed to keep out casual voters and ensure only those who live the platform’s culture get to choose its enforcers.
There are usually six to nine seats up for election at a time. Winners serve for one year, and no one can serve more than three consecutive terms. This rotation prevents any one group from dominating. In 2025, over 11,000 users voted in the ArbCom election, with turnout rising steadily since 2020. The top three candidates each received over 85% support. That’s not just popularity - it’s consensus.
How the Wikimedia Board Is Chosen
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees oversees the organization that hosts Wikipedia. It controls the budget, hires the executive director, and sets long-term strategy. But here’s the twist: the Board isn’t hired by a corporation. It’s elected by a mix of community votes, affiliate organizations, and appointments.
Of the 18 seats on the Board, 10 are filled through direct community elections. That means if you’re a registered Wikipedia editor with enough edits and activity, you can vote for who represents you. The other eight seats are filled by affiliates (like national Wikimedia chapters), the Foundation itself, and a few appointed members.
The community election process is rigorous. Candidates must submit detailed statements explaining their vision, experience, and plans. They often participate in live Q&A sessions on Meta-Wiki, where hundreds of editors ask tough questions. In 2024, over 18,000 users voted in the Board election - more than the entire population of Madison, Wisconsin.
Winners serve three-year terms, with elections staggered so only a third of the seats are up each year. This keeps continuity. The 2025 election saw a record number of candidates from outside North America and Europe - a sign that Wikipedia’s governance is becoming more global. One candidate from Kenya won with 92% support, beating out long-time incumbents. That’s not an anomaly - it’s the system working as designed.
How Community Voting Actually Works
Wikipedia elections use a system called Single Transferable Vote (STV). It’s not like picking your favorite candidate and calling it a day. STV lets voters rank candidates in order of preference. If your top choice wins easily, your extra votes get redistributed to your second choice. If your top choice is eliminated, your vote moves to your next pick. This ensures that winners have broad support, not just loud minorities.
Here’s how it plays out in practice:
- You don’t just vote for one person - you rank at least three.
- The system calculates a quota - the minimum votes needed to win. If someone hits it, their surplus votes are passed on.
- If no one hits the quota, the lowest-ranked candidate is dropped, and their votes are redistributed.
- This repeats until all seats are filled.
This method prevents vote-splitting. In 2023, a candidate who came in fourth on first-choice votes ended up winning because of second- and third-choice transfers. That’s STV in action - it rewards consensus, not just popularity.
The software used to count votes is open source, transparent, and auditable. Anyone can download the raw data and verify the results. There’s never been a confirmed case of fraud. That transparency is part of why the community trusts the process.
Who Gets to Vote - And Who Doesn’t
Not every Wikipedia user can vote. To participate in ArbCom or Board elections, you need:
- At least 500 edits across all Wikimedia projects (not just English Wikipedia)
- At least six months of account activity
- No recent blocks or sanctions for abuse
These aren’t arbitrary. They’re meant to filter out sock puppets, bots, and people who show up just to vote. The 500-edit threshold means you’ve likely spent hundreds of hours understanding how Wikipedia works - its policies, its culture, its conflicts. You’re not just a reader. You’re a participant.
There’s also a regional balance rule. No more than 30% of elected ArbCom members can come from the same country. That’s why you’ll often see candidates from Nigeria, Indonesia, or Brazil on the ballot - not just the U.S. or Germany. It’s not about quotas. It’s about preventing one region from dominating the rules that affect everyone.
Why This System Still Works - And Why It’s Under Pressure
Wikipedia’s election system has lasted over 15 years. It’s survived bot wars, political polarization, and massive growth. But it’s not perfect.
Turnout is still low. Only about 2% of active editors vote. That’s not because people don’t care - it’s because the system is complex. Many users don’t know how to rank candidates, or they think their vote doesn’t matter. Campaigning is mostly done through long forum posts, not social media. There’s no TV ad, no viral video.
Some argue that the 500-edit rule is outdated. With mobile editing and AI-assisted tools, you can make hundreds of edits without deep policy knowledge. Others say the rule should be stricter - maybe 1,000 edits or even a written exam.
But the real challenge isn’t the rules. It’s engagement. The people who care enough to vote are often the same ones who’ve been here since 2010. Newer editors, especially from non-Western countries, often don’t know the process exists. The Wikimedia Foundation has started running video explainers in multiple languages, and local chapters now host election workshops. Early results show a 17% increase in voter turnout among new editors who attended these sessions.
What Happens After You Vote
After the votes are counted, the winners are announced. But the real work starts then. ArbCom members don’t get paid. They spend 10-20 hours a week reading disputes, writing rulings, and responding to appeals. Board members travel globally, meet with donors, and review financial reports. They’re volunteers - but their decisions affect millions.
If you’ve ever edited a Wikipedia article, you’ve already participated in this system. Every edit is a vote for what knowledge should be preserved. But when you vote for ArbCom or the Board, you’re choosing who gets to decide what happens when things go wrong. That’s not just participation. It’s responsibility.
Can anyone vote in Wikipedia elections?
No. To vote in ArbCom or Wikimedia Board elections, you must have at least 500 edits across all Wikimedia projects and an account that’s been active for six months or more. This ensures voters have real experience with Wikipedia’s policies and culture. Bots, newly created accounts, and users under sanctions are excluded.
How are ArbCom members chosen?
ArbCom members are elected annually by registered editors who meet the voting criteria. Candidates must have a history of dispute resolution, administrative experience, and deep knowledge of Wikipedia policies. The election uses a ranked-choice voting system called Single Transferable Vote (STV) to ensure winners have broad support. Winners serve one-year terms and can serve up to three consecutive terms.
What does the Wikimedia Board actually do?
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees oversees the nonprofit that hosts Wikipedia. It manages the budget, hires the executive director, approves major initiatives, and ensures the organization stays true to its mission. Ten of its 18 seats are filled by community elections, while others are appointed by affiliates or the Foundation itself.
Why does Wikipedia use ranked voting instead of simple voting?
Ranked voting - specifically Single Transferable Vote (STV) - prevents vote-splitting and ensures winners have broad consensus. Instead of just picking one candidate, voters rank multiple choices. If a candidate gets more votes than needed, extra votes transfer to others. If someone is eliminated, their votes go to the next choice. This system rewards candidates who appeal to a wide range of editors, not just a loud minority.
Are Wikipedia elections fair and transparent?
Yes. All votes are counted using open-source software, and raw data is published for public audit. Results are verified by volunteers and sometimes third-party observers. There has never been a confirmed case of manipulation. The system is designed to be resistant to sock puppets, bots, and coordinated campaigns - which is why voting eligibility is tied to long-term contribution.
