Talk:Movement Charter/Archive 2

Archives

---

• Archive 1: December 2020 - August 2022
• Archive 2: September 2022 - March 2023
• Archive 3: March - September 2023
• Archive 4: September 2023 - March 2024

November-December 2022 community consultation: moved from the page Talk:Movement Charter/Community Consultation

Schedule of Events

Why are sessions #2 and #3 held on the same day and at same time? Wouldn't different times not have allowed for a better chance for different people to participate? If one is already engaged differently that Saturday, the only alternative is session #1. Wuselig (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Wuselig! Actually, these sessions were planned independently by the team's regional facilitators to the best of their regions/timezones and less supposed to be an alternative for those who can't make it in their region. The same scheduling was merely a coincidence. Nevertheless, we wanted to keep them as they are to have smaller groups of participants, so that every attending participant might have the chance to be heard. In case you can't make it: The introductory part of the call will be recorded and shared afterward. And in case you have more questions, feel free to post them here or write them directly to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee via email (movementcharterwikimediaorg). Cheers, Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 19:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

English only? no! Japanese as well! Great Community

Ihr wollte die Community befragen und informiert darüber in zwei Sprachen? Ja, das wird Sicherlich ein für movende Movement total repräsentatives Ergebnis bringen. Reduziert doch die Fragerunde einfach auf das Büro in Frisco. Spart viel Arbeit und ist am Ende wohl genauso repräsentativ. ... aber immerhin sind ein paar andere Seiten in ein paar andere zufällige Sprachen übersetzt. Das Movement Charter in eine ganz illustere Auswahl. Zwar nicht in so wichtige Sprachen wie Französisch und Spanisch, aber hey...Sicherlich ^Post 21:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sicherlich - vielleicht gibst du uns die Gelegenheit, die Übersetzungen anzufertigen, bevor du über die Auswahl schimpfst? Die Übersetzung durch unser Team läuft derzeit noch. Danke! DBarthel (WMF) (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

DBarthel (WMF): Klar: in 2 Tagen ist die 1. Session, u.a. mit Chinesisch und da gibts gerade eben die ersten zarten Übersetzungsversuche. Und, mit Verweis auf die Kurier-Disk konnte man wohl, so man denn gewollte hätte, nichtmal auf deutsch übersetzen (das scheint behoben; du liest ja mit ;o) ) . ... aber klar, vermutlich bin ich einfach nur zu ungeduldig ...
und das bspw. Movement Charter/Drafting Committee nur in irgendwelchen zufälligen Sprachen übersetzt ist, ist leider auch eine Tatsache. Movement Charter fehlt in französisch, spanisch und russisch defacto völlig: Große Sprachen die hier sogar ihren eigenen Dolmetscher bekommen sollen --> Allen ernstes: wer kein English könnte wüsste nichtmal so recht worum es geht. Ich sehe Deine Anstrengungen und ich finde sie gut. Aber ich sehe keinerlei Systematik oder Konsistenz bei den Übersetzungen. Gefühlt ist es ein Feuerlöschen wenn irgendwo jmd. es lauter anmerkt. Ich bin hier ausnahmsweise auch nur der Bote. Bemerkt und angesprochen wurde es zuerst auf dem Kurier und das nicht von mir ...Sicherlich ^Post 19:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sicherlich - mir ist durchaus bewußt, dass der Zeitrahmen für die ESEAP-Runde extrem eng ist und die Kollegen der Region haben die Übersetzung und Bekanntmachung deshalb auch als Priorität bekommen. Da hat das Announcement aber Priorität (und bevor du fragst: die verschiedenenen chinesischen sowie die koreanischen Übersetzungen sind dafür gar nicht erst auf Meta gelandet, sondern bereits direkt in die Kanäle der jeweiligen Communities gegangen, ebenso auch die japanische Version). Für alle anderen Communitys sollen die Übersetzungen erst am Freitag fertig sein, wenn wir dann die Bekanntmachungen auch verteilen. Das Ailura die englische Version gleich bemerkt und auf dem Kurier gepostet hat, ist natürlich toll, hat uns aber vor der Fertigstellung aller Übersetzungen kalt erwischt.
Was die anderen von dir genannten Kanäle angeht: unser Team unterstützt das MCDC zwar während dieser Community-Konsultation, ansonsten wahrt es aber als gewähltes Gremium aus Freiwilligen seine Unabhängigkeit und koordiniert seine Arbeit autonom. Was also diese älteren Seiten angeht, würde ich dir empfehlen dich entweder selbst an das MCDC zu wenden unter movementcharterwikimediaorg, auf Wunsch gebe ich das aber auch gern weiter.
Ich hoffe, der Blick hinter die Kulissen hat das ein wenig aufgeklärt. Beste Grüße, DBarthel (WMF) (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Die Timelines scheinen mir immer knapp: warum? Wird Wikipedia fertig gestellt? Oder wurde vorher viel Zeit verbummelt und nun muss man irgendeine Deadline einhalten damits nicht völlig albern wird?

Und die anderen Seiten sind wie erwähnt ja auch noch nicht übersetzt. Das an das gewählte Team abzuschieben ist natürlich praktisch für WMF. Wenn WMF aber das mit der Kommunikation mit den Communities wichtig wäre würde man schlicht Dolmetscher anstellen; so superduper besonders ist das Wikipedia-Englisch nun auch nicht und Geld ist bei WMF mehr als ausreichend vorhanden. Aber will man nicht; werde ich mich also weiter über diese so toll globale Organisation lustig machen und rummosern

Weiterleiten ans MCDC oder sonstwen ist IMO nicht nötig. Wenns jmd. wie dieses MCDC oder sonstwer für die Community und dieses Community-Consultation-Dingens interessiert wird er die Diskussionsseiten beobachten. Wenn nicht ists halt auch egal, weils ihm ja egal ist ;o) ...Sicherlich ^Post 20:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Jetzt moser ich mal rum: wenn du meinen Erläuterungen nicht glaubst oder meinst ich verscheissere dich um irgendjemandem hier zu gefallen, lass es mich doch bitte wissen.
Zu den Timelines: wenn das hier ein Unternehmen wäre, dann wäre deine Kritik berechtigt. Isses aber nicht. In einem ... wasauchimmer, in dem einzigartig viele Interessengruppen mitzureden haben, wird es aber nie einen Plan geben, in dem nicht irgendwo mal was knapp oder eng wird oder plötzlich verändert werden muss. Weil hier eben nicht durchregiert werden kann (zum Glück).
Was das "Einstellen von Übersetzern" angeht: das Movement Strategy and Governance-Team dem ich angehöre, beschäftigt Facilitators in 13 Sprachen, die alle übersetzen. Bei unseren Kollegen von Movement Communications wird gerade das Netzwerk von Übersetzern ausgebaut, das bald für die ganze Foundation zentral arbeitet, das waren mal 6 Sprachen, aktuell sind es 17, derzeit wird auf 31 aufgestockt. Habe ich dir auch schon mal gesagt, dass das läuft ...
Ohne Zweifel - das kommt alles spät und du (und viele andere) hast es schon 2004 gesagt und so. Aber ganz im Ernst: nachdem dich dieser Laden so lang immer wieder in deinen Enttäuschungen und Befürchtungen bestätigt hat, würdest du noch erkennen wenn sich die Dinge verändern? Sicherlich? DBarthel (WMF) (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

? Warum soll ich Dir nicht glauben? - Ich glaube(!) WMF ist ein konstrukt welches sich viel mit sich selbst beschäftigt und nur wenig mit der Community an sich (übrigens auch für WMD; dort ist WP ja ausdrücklich nur ein kleiner Teil. Man strebt größeres an) - dabei wirst Du persönlich da Sicherlich Dein bestes tun. Das glaube ich. Für die WMF-Gesamtheit glaube ich das nicht, nein.
das "nicht irgendwo mal was knapp " - klar, nur ist das bei den Übersetzungen standard. Movement Charter gibts seit November 2020. Französisch, Spanisch? Fehlanzeige. Übersetzugen auf meta sind so scheint es ein Zufallsprodukt. Wer gerade Zeit hat tut es. (Du bist im Deutschen engagiert 👍). So bekommt man Leute die des Englischen nicht (ausreichend) mächtig sind nicht auf meta. Mal ists übersetzt, mal nicht; was soll jmd. damit anfangen? Wenn das mit dem Aufbau läuft; schön. Nur sehe ich davon halt in der Praxis wenig. ...
Ob ich Veränderungen erkenne? Keine Ahnung; ich gucke hier und da mal rein wie auch hier. Jmd. schreibt im Kurier "oh guck englisch"; ich gucke und denke "oh guck wie immer". ... jmd. schreibt im Kurier: "Commons funktioniert nicht"; ich weiß: ja stimmt, Videos lad ich nicht hoch weil der Konverter nicht geht (oder nur manchmal? Keine Ahnung), Bilder stapeln sich auf dem Rechner aber ist mir zu mühsam ohne Commonist, der seit nem Jahr tot ist (Von mir 2021: 1.156 Objekte hochgeladen sagt mein Rechner, 2022: 264). Besserung in Sicht? Wohl nicht, UCOC und Strategie und so haben Sicherlich Priorität
Weiteres super-lustiges Beispiel (hier WMD glaube ich): Wiki-Tech on Tour oder so. Da gings gar nicht um Technik-Wünsche. Da gings um Befindlichkeiten welche gefühlte Randgruppe wie wo repräsentiert werden darf 😂 - das ist IMO das aktuelle Wikimedia-Universum. Primär mit sich selbst beschäftigt und so behäbig, dass sich Wiki zu nennen eigentlich schon unlauter ist ;) ...
Was hat sich geändert? Bissl mehr wird übersetzt; das ist schön, aber halt immer noch zufällig.
Mein Eindruck; die Wikimedia-Welt (Also WMF und WMD) ist mit vor allem mit viel Verwaltung und sich selbst beschäftigt; Strategie/Prozesse/Talks/Meetings und immer mal wieder darf man für irgendwelchen Verwaltungskram abstimmen und so das gefühl haben man bestimme irgendwas relevantes (UCOC der beschlossen war bevor er vorgestellt wurde, ob sich WMF wohl Wikipedia nennen durfte und trotz negativem Bescheid es doch wollte, irgendwelche Sitze im Board, nun irgendwas mit Movement und vermutlich konnte man beim Drafting Committee dafür auch irgendwie mehr oder weniger relevant mitstimmen?! . Nur ist das alles nicht das "Produkt". Das Produkt sind die Informationen welche von den Freiwilligen gesammelt werden. Die Freiwilligen sind die Arbeitskraft die man freihalten muss von Unsinn; also tools die funktionieren (siehe Commons), aber auch Bürokratie-Monstern wie 50 Strategie-Zielen. Bei letzterem bist Du ja glaube ein Fan von: Frag doch mal zufällige Wikipedianer was denn die Strategischen Ziele von WMF sind. Ich wäre überrascht wenn sie die wüssten; würde zeigen wieviele Relevanz das ganze hat
aber rum wie num: manchmal schreib ich was, meistens scroll ich weiter. Ein Projekt für das ich brenne ist Wikipedia schon lange nicht mehr. Wird es auch nicht wieder werden, also im Zweifel nicht an mir abmühen [schrieb ich glaube ich schonmal]. Die Kommerzialisierung ist nicht umkehrbar nicht falsch verstehen; ich bin Sicherlich kein Fan von Sozialismus & Co. So gar nicht und damit ist IMO auch der Spirit des Ganzen am Erlöschen. Vielleicht kommt ein neuer, vielleicht stirbt es auch und wird von Google/Musk o.ä. geschluckt und verwertet. Das man den alten wiederbeleben kann ist IMO unwahrscheinlich ...Sicherlich ^Post 22:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Wow, das ist jetzt aber ein langer reply 🤣 ...Sicherlich ^Post 22:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback on the draft of first three sections

The topics below are related to the draft of Preamble, Values & Principles and Roles & Responsibilities. The overview of the draft can be seen in Movement Charter/Content.

Role of WMF

The Preamble doesn't say clearly what is the role of WMF in the Wikimedia Movement. I saw in the 13 years I am volunteer many conflicts between volunteers and WMF because there is not a clear boundary to what the Foundation can and can not do without the consultation and approval of the volunteers. I was hoping the charter would finally fix that issue, but I don't see that in the current draft.

In my point of view, one of the reason we see volunteers criticising WMF is because the Foundation frequently come with plans, ideas and projects, and disclose it in the announcement channels, but we rarely see WMF comes to the communities and just ask what they can do for the volunteers. And when that occurs, like in the Wishlist, the WMF don't seems to effort to realize what volunteers want as they effort for the plans defined by the WMF management. A good example of that is that the the #1 wish in community wishlist this year is a task requested in 2006 and was in the wishlist of other years, but despite of that the task is still marked as low priority. Another recent example is the effort enwiki volunteers had to do to make WMF note they need some technical help. On the other direction we have the example of Flow, where WMF allocated efforts and resources to develop and only noted the majority of the volunteers don't want it when it was already developed.

I recommend for those who have some minutes to watch this TED Talk, that is not exactly related to what we do in the Wikimedia Movement, but it helps us to understand that helping people with their own ideas is more effective than try to make they follow our ideas. So my suggestion to the Movement Charter is to make clear the role of the Wikimedia Foundation in the Wikimedia Movement, saying that WMF must pay attention to the volunteers needs, ideas and opinions. Danilo.mac talk 19:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

What does “Chinese” mean? (last topic — the ESEAP one)

I’m assuming it means Mandarin, but can someone make a note that the word “Chinese” should never be used unless qualified (e.g. for spoken, are we saying Mandarin? someething else? more than one form of spoken Chinese? which ones?)? “Chinese” alone means very little. Al12si (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@VChang (WMF) can best respond probably --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC).

US and Canada: no interpretation?

Just curious (I’m not Francophone), but why is there no interpretation? Shouldn’t there be French interpretation since Canada is involved? Al12si (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Al12si I believe it's because English is commonly spoken in the North America region, and also because there were two other calls already with French language interpretation for those who need it (Sub-Saharan Africa and North Western Europe) --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC).

@Abbad (WMF) Thank you. I wonder though, are these really regional consultations, or are they more language-oriented? I’d suppose someone from Quebec (or Northern Ontario, say) wouldn’t have thought to attend the African or the European one.

Sorry if this is a stupid question. I almost went to the US/Canada one but left after I realized we’d be breaking into groups for group discussions, so I really don’t know how these consultations work; I had not read the draft so I’d have nothing to contribute if I stayed. —Al12si (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Zoom version: Can WMF do something?

When I launched Zoom, I was met with an error that says I must upgrade to 5.8.6 or later. The official version of Zoom for older Linuxes is 5.4.2.

Can someone from WMF bug Zoom to either (1) make their servers support 5.4.2 (which is the only version people with older Linuxes can download), or (2) make a version for older Linuxes that will work with their current servers? Thank you in advance. — Al12si (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@CKibelka (WMF) Any clue about this? --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC).

Hi @Al12si, what do you mean by "older Linuxes"? I mean, the latest Zoom version for Linux, in general, is 5.12.9, as of today.

If that version doesn't work on your Linux instance, there is the possibility to join a Zoom meeting through the web client in your browser (Firefox, Chromium). The web client has some limitations (see the table here), but almost none of them should affect you as a participant joining the meeting. Have you tried that web client?

Let me / us know if that works for you. Cheeers, Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 14:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@CKibelka (WMF) Yes, the browser client now works (it used to not meaningfully work, it was recently fixed). Not comparable to the native client, but works.

I’d nevertheless appreciate it if WMF could leverage their influence and maybe let Zoom know this (that saying x is the official version while x doesn’t actually work) is a problem. Big software companies don’t listen to ordinary users. — Al12si (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Feedback deadline is 18 December

Thank you for all the feedback! This is an acknowledgement that all comments here are being monitored. A summary of them is being compiled and will be shared back here in January 2023. The MCDC will refer to the same summary when refining this draft and others early in the new year. As a reminder and as mentioned in the community consultations page, the deadline for this round of consultations is 18 December, so please share your feedback by then. There will also be more feedback opportunities in 2023 Abbad (WMF) (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Feedback report published

Thank you, again, to all who participated in the community consultation. We have published a summary of the feedback, to give a brief idea of the sentiments about the published drafts. The summary is based on an extended list of all the feedback received, which the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) is looking through in detail in order to refine the current drafts.

The MCDC will share responses to the feedback in March 2023 (including what changes they are making and, if no changes are being made, the rationale/response to it) --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC).

Good to see there were many feedbacks. Can I ask what were the channels more used for give feedback? I was the only that gave feedback in this talk page, and I am curious to know what are the preferred channels. Danilo.mac talk 17:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Danilo.mac Truly sorry I have missed when I should not have. I think I'll redirect this talk page to talk:Movement Charter in the next consultation, as it was a distraction (we had a bit of activity on the main Charter talk page, plus the draft talk pages: Preamble, Values & Principles and Roles & Responsibilities). Overall stats of engagement on channels were as follows:

• About 200 people attended the 8 live regional feedback meetings.
• About 80 people submitted a feedback form on LimeSurvey.
• About 20 communities were engaged by Movement Charter Ambassadors (sometimes through community-specific meetings, other times through individual conversations).
• About 20-30 unique users engaged on the talk pages on Meta, here's the engagement on the Preamble talk page as an example

I hope this may have been helpful, even though awfully delayed. Do you have any feedback yourself about the channels for next time, that you'd like me to take back? --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC).

April 2023 ratification methodology consultation

Draft chapters feedback

There is an ongoing Movement Charter Community Consultation. Below is a duplicate version of an anonymous feedback survey to participate, for those who may wish to fill it out publicly.

Paragraph 1

The Wikimedia movement is focused on developing, curating and expanding the global availability of free knowledge. The Wikimedia Movement Charter exists to define the Wikimedia movement, its core values and principles. It is a formal social agreement explaining the relationships between entities within the movement and their rights and responsibilities. This applies equally to both existing entities and those to be established.

Assessment & comments

Is this paragraph good enough for the Movement Charter draft? Please assess it on a scale of the following: strongly agree (good), agree, disagree or strongly disagree (not good)

• Agree: I have the ambition that the Preamble be concise and inspirational. Therefore I recommend to remove the present last sentence, "This applies equally to both existing entities and those to be established." To me that refers to a kind of legalism that can be put elsewhere. It is also not strictly necessary to constrain the future here; it might also not be treated as binding by future interpreters, since it's in the Preamble. Also the sentence subject is "This" which seems unclear; does that word refer to the Charter overall? I can't see what else it could mean. -- econterms (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
• Disagree with this paragraph and with the entirety of Movement Strategy, for a number of reasons:
  1. This is not a "movement." Nothing that anyone on any Wikimedia website is doing comes even close to other, real, movements, like the abolitionist movement, women's suffrage, or the civil rights movements. We are not freeing oppressed people. We are not changing life as we know it for anyone. The use of the word "movement" to describe what we're doing is either vapid marketingspeak (if you don't believe it but you think it sounds good for donations and such), or extremely arrogant (if you actually think this is a movement like the others).
  2. Even if it were a movement, movements don't have charters. Movements aren't directed by an elected body of people who get together and write a statement of governing principles that is then ratified by a vote of the members. That's called an "organization", not a "movement". Organizations have charters and mission statements and votes and the like--the WMF has them--but not movements. Real movements are grassroots, leaderless, nebulous, evolving, and organic. Indeed, that's why they're called "movements" and not "organizations". A defining feature of a movement is that it lacks organization. Wikimedia is an organization. There is no "free knowledge movement", there's just an organization hosting websites.
  3. Movement Strategy was voted on in 2017. So: most of the people who voted on it no longer actively volunteer, and most of the people who actively volunteer today did not vote on it. Five years is too long: if it takes five years to go from the vote to starting to draft the charter, it's just too long. We need to have another vote, and we should be having votes like every five years, because of turnover within the volunteer community.

I believe the Movement Charter and Movement Strategy and the very idea of "movement" is outdated and out of touch, and should be revisited by the current community, not the one from 5-10 years ago. I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but I do not belong to any movement. Levivich (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• Agree. This is a preamble and it should contain who drafted the charter and not just who will raftify it or if the communities' agreement is included.Nada kareem22 (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Paragraph 2

The Charter exists with the agreement of the communities governed by it, through a formal ratification process. The Movement Charter applies to all members, entities and technical spaces within the Wikimedia movement, including but not limited to content contributors, projects, affiliates, and the Wikimedia Foundation.

Assessment & comments

Is this paragraph good enough for the Movement Charter draft? Please assess it on a scale of the following: strongly agree (good), agree, disagree or strongly disagree (not good)

• Agree.Nada kareem22 (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Paragraph 3

To achieve our focus, the movement has developed a wide range of knowledge repositories (“the projects”) in multiple languages with different focuses. The projects are largely self-governed, with respect to content creation and management, as well as community conduct. The movement also includes both organised and informal groups focused on specific matters or geographic regions. The role of these groups is to support the projects directly and indirectly.

Assessment & comments

Is this paragraph good enough for the Movement Charter draft? Please assess it on a scale of the following: strongly agree (good), agree, disagree or strongly disagree (not good)

• Disagree. I recommend sharper phrasing for brevity. I recommend to replace (a) "To achieve our focus, the" by "The"; (b) "with respect to content creation and management, as well as community conduct" by the simpler "with respect to content creation, management, and community conduct"; and (c) "support the projects directly and indirectly" by "support the projects". -- econterms, 14:36, 2 December 2022
• Disagree. I don't think that "largely self-governed" is appropriate since that there is rules that limits content management and there is a global ban policiy that is not initiated by the communities' projects. Also, the aspects of direct and indirect support should be included.Nada kareem22 (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Legal note

Any suggestions and specific phrasings that can capture the meaning while satisfying Legal’s concerns?

• ..

Paragraph 4

Supplementing these projects and groups is a comprehensive infrastructure with several roles. The infrastructure supports the technical needs of the movement. The infrastructure provides financial and other resources for ongoing development and retention of knowledge. The infrastructure endeavours to promote legal and regulatory environments that enable the movement, and the entities within it, to operate around the world. The infrastructure also supports content contributors, readers, and all others who are part of the global Wikimedia movement by promoting and advancing a safe and productive environment in which knowledge can be shared and consumed, where it is not feasible for a local project to do so itself. The nature and extent of the infrastructure support is limited by the movement’s values, resources, and restrictions imposed outside of the movement.

Assessment & comments

Is this paragraph good enough for the Movement Charter draft? Please assess it on a scale of the following: strongly agree (good), agree, disagree or strongly disagree (not good)

• ..

Paragraph 1

We represent a fact-based, open, and inclusive approach to knowledge. Our projects serve knowledge to a global audience, and the platforms that host the projects are driven by independent initiative. Our policies and everyday practices are guided by community values that empower all Wikimedians everywhere to be able to participate on a basis of equity.

Assessment & comments

Is this paragraph good enough for the Movement Charter draft? Please assess it on a scale of the following: strongly agree (good), agree, disagree or strongly disagree (not good)

• ..

Paragraph 2

Free knowledge and open source

We share, in the spirit of free knowledge, all of our content, all our software, all our platforms with the world, using the transformative tool of open licensing. We commit to making space for the knowledge that has historically been marginalized - including within our projects.

Assessment & comments

Is this paragraph good enough for the Movement Charter draft? Please assess it on a scale of the following: strongly agree (good), agree, disagree or strongly disagree (not good)

• Disagree. "We commit to making space for the knowledge that has historically been marginalized". This is highly problematic as it indicates that there is hidden agenda and targeted and designed content. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nada kareem22 (talk) 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Paragraph 3

Independence

We strive to operate independently, without any favoritism that would hinder our free knowledge mission. We are not driven by commercial, political or other monetary or promotional influences.

Assessment & comments

Is this paragraph good enough for the Movement Charter draft? Please assess it on a scale of the following: strongly agree (good), agree, disagree or strongly disagree (not good)

• Disagree. There are a lot of "We"s and "Our" in the charter and it doesn't say who are those.This collective speech denies individuality.Nada kareem22 (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Paragraph 4

Inclusivity

We foster a people-centered vision of participatory co-creation. Our projects are intended to be available in all languages, and accessible on diverse platforms by universal design and assistive technology. Our practices build on and safeguard the diversity and rights of our communities. To do so, we establish and enforce codes of conduct, and ensure that everyone feels valued and equally included.

Assessment & comments

Is this paragraph good enough for the Movement Charter draft? Please assess it on a scale of the following: strongly agree (good), agree, disagree or strongly disagree (not good)

• ..

Paragraph 5

Subsidiarity

We entrust authority to the most immediate or local level that is appropriate, on both our platforms and in our organizational governance. Thereby, we ensure a capable self-management and autonomy of communities that acts in accordance with the values of the global movement.

Assessment & comments

Is this paragraph good enough for the Movement Charter draft? Please assess it on a scale of the following: strongly agree (good), agree, disagree or strongly disagree (not good)

• Tentatively disagree: (a) This word is unusual in my experience. "Subsidiarity" seems to refers to a kind of "federalism" (a U.S. phrasing which I recognize more easily), meaning much authority is left to local/provincial/state governments. Would it be appropriate to say that "federalism" as a sort of synonym? Or have I misunderstood? (b) More importantly the second sentence would be sharper and clearer if it stated our intent. I recommend to change "Thereby, we ensure" to the simpler "We encourage". -- econterms (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
• Disagree. The relationship between the foundation and the communities needs more elaboration. It doesn't say if this "self-management" is absolute or unconditional.Nada kareem22 (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Paragraph 6

Equity

We empower and support communities through pragmatic decentralization and autonomy. Along with equity in the representation of knowledge, we enable equity of resources. We also enable equity of digital rights such as privacy to our users and all participants to the widest extent possible.

Assessment & comments

Is this paragraph good enough for the Movement Charter draft? Please assess it on a scale of the following: strongly agree (good), agree, disagree or strongly disagree (not good)

• Comment Can provide some more information on what is meant by Along with equity in the representation of knowledge, we enable equity of resources? BilledMammal (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• @BilledMammal "Equity in the representation of knowledge" probably refers to representing different kinds of content on Wikimedia projects. Likely related to how the Knowledge Gaps Taxonomy attempts to find out current gaps in knowledge representation. "Enable equity of resources" probably refers to equitable sharing of funds from the Wikimedia Foundation (or any future entity that replaces it in this role) with Wikimedia affiliates and communities everywhere in the world. Let me know if you have had a different question in mind --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC).

Paragraph 7

Accountability

We hold ourselves accountable through the transparency of shared editable documentation where at all possible, public notice and reporting of programs and activities, and the prioritization of voices representing community leadership for the roles and responsibilities delineated in our charter.

Assessment & comments

Is this paragraph good enough for the Movement Charter draft? Please assess it on a scale of the following: strongly agree (good), agree, disagree or strongly disagree (not good)

• Disagree. The limitations on sharing documentation should be mentioned with specificity.Nada kareem22 (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Paragraph 8

Resilience

We thrive by innovation and experimentation, continually renewing the vision of what a platform for free knowledge can be. We pursue effective strategies and practices driven by evidence. We promote a culture of sustainability across our structures and communities.

Assessment & comments

Is this paragraph good enough for the Movement Charter draft? Please assess it on a scale of the following: strongly agree (good), agree, disagree or strongly disagree (not good)

• Agree. I like the spirit here, and I also think the statement is correct. I think it's important to incorporate the idea in the Preamble that we are engaged in a free/open-source software (FOSS) activity, and will follow the relevant principles and make partnerships with others in FOSS activities. This is a good place perhaps to put that idea, because this is so close already. Or perhaps it could be in another paragraph. I will think about how to phrase it. E.g.: We tolerate bold experimentation; and we will look to seize on ideas and implementations that work without battling too much over ownership/credit/priority/appropriation. Also that we think it is appropriate for the visionary creators of useful works to have some control over them temporarily at least. -- econterms (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Introduction section

This is only an "intentions statement", describing the intended content of the Roles & Responsibilities chapter of the Movement Charter.

With the draft below, the MCDC introduces its main intentions for the foundation of the Roles & Responsibilities chapter of the Movement Charter. This brief explanation, up to the actual intentions below, will not be part of the final version of the Movement Charter but is only intended as an explanation during the consultation processes.

The Roles and Responsibilities chapter will present an overview of the various roles and responsibilities within the Wikimedia Movement, and its division across involved stakeholders. We intend to engage with different stakeholders in the process of redefining and organizing the governance model for the Wikimedia Movement.

Overall, this chapter will define the adoption of our values and principles in practice. It will describe the distribution of roles and responsibilities for entities across the Wikimedia Movement, including the suggested but unexplored structures of Global Council and Hubs.

The Movement Charter will be written in simple English to provide a low entry barrier to the complexity of our ecosystem.

It is important to note, that the Movement Charter Drafting Committee does not have a decision making power by itself, but once the Movement Charter is formally ratified, it will redefine our governance structure. The exact ratification process is yet to be determined.

Assessment & comments

Is this paragraph good enough for the Movement Charter draft? Please assess it on a scale of the following: strongly agree (good), agree, disagree or strongly disagree (not good)

• ..

Introduction section

The Roles & Responsibilities chapter will be based on the following intentions:

1. As the Wikimedia Movement has changed over the last 20 years, the committee understands that roles and responsibilities need to evolve accordingly. They also need to provide space for future growth, adjustment and innovation.
2. This chapter will provide an overview of the Wikimedia Movement and will introduce two new entities: Hubs and the Global Council. The chapter will also introduce and define the mandates of these new entities, when and where they seem fit. The committee will provide clarity of structure, functions, hierarchy and interactions for all stakeholders. :We will work to come to a common agreement for a Hubs definition, taking into account the on-going pilots and community perspectives. Considering the anticipated stature of the Global Council, there will be a dedicated chapter in the Movement Charter.
3. The roles and responsibilities that currently exist in the Wikimedia Movement may be modified, in part or whole. While doing this, the MCDC will review the previous work by the Movement Strategy 2030 working groups, as well as other relevant resources.
4. Our Movement is constantly evolving. The MCDC will consider alternative governance structures and their potential for future applications.
5. The MCDC will propose new roles and responsibilities for the Movement, fill identified gaps and aim for decentralization and subsidiarity.

Assessment & comments

Is this paragraph good enough for the Movement Charter draft? Please assess it on a scale of the following: strongly agree (good), agree, disagree or strongly disagree (not good)

• ..

Acknowledgement

Thank you, @Econterms, for the good feedback! Acknowledging here that this is a public version of the feedback survey that allows transparent sharing for those who wish (and, hopefully, for more interaction with it). This page is being monitored and will inform the Movement Charter Drafting Committee when refining the drafts. When publishing the refined drafts, we'll also be documenting the exact changes taking place based on the feedback --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 10:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC).

Feedback deadline is 18 December

Thank you for all the feedback! This is an acknowledgement that all comments here are being monitored. A summary of them is being compiled and will be shared back here in January 2023. The MCDC will refer to the same summary when refining this draft and others early in the new year. As a reminder and as mentioned in the community consultations page, the deadline for this round of consultations is 18 December, so please share your feedback by then. There will also be more feedback opportunities in 2023! Abbad (WMF) (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)