Movement Charter/Community Consultation/November–December 2022

Movement Charter

FAQ

Content

Community Consultation

Drafting Committee

Ratification vote

This page contains the detailed feedback from the Movement Charter Community Consultation held between 20 November and 18 December 2022. Most of the feedback is individual comments, quoted literally with slight copy-editing and shortening. The Movement Charter Drafting Committee is using this detailed feedback to revise the drafts of the Preamble and the Values & Principles chapters, and to inform the drafting of the Roles & Responsibilities chapter.

General feedback

Positive sentiments

Positive feedback:

• The Movement Charter Drafting Committee did a real good job. Congratulations!
• Thanks to all the MCDC members for their work so far. This generally seems on the right track.
• The structure makes sense and it is good that it is concise.
• Good writing.
• The more it is explained, the more the paragraphs start to make sense.
• The Preamble is good. It's comprehensive.
• Compliment the MCDC for this wonderful draft; this text resonates with me; I like the diverse nature of this doc, including all aspects of the Movement.
• The existence of a Movement Charter is important because it's possible to govern and control a small number of groups. Not everyone will be satisfied, and that's normal because of the diverse nature of communities.
• The preamble gives a perfect definition of what the Movement Charter is, the content actually explains what the movement should be. The intentions of the Movement Charter are simple and clear.

Readability

Comprehensibility:

• Please use “Oxford commas", throughout the entire document. They help both readers and machine translation software.
• It's very hard to read [particularly the Preamble]. Perhaps it's not the translator's fault, but rather the fact that the Japanese and English are so far apart that the sentences become like this.
• The text is very vague [especially Preamble]. It allows rubber paragraphs that can be interpreted in different directions.
• The translation into other languages is difficult; we should be using SIMPLER English.
• La Charte du Mouvement devrait être rédigée à un langage simple plutôt qu'à une langue spécifique.
• The content uses multiple breaks which may make it hard to translate precisely. Use simple sentences [particularly about the Values].
• Three volunteers commented that simple English is to be used as early as possible in MC.
• All participants insisted on simplification of language. Almost none of the participants had any idea about the Movement Charter.
• Sentences containing several breaks and commas should be rephrased/reworded and modified into simpler sentences.
• Movement Charter content adapts a very high vocabulary so that it influences the translation which is rigid and not easy to understand.
• The translation is tedious, the content is complex and then there are so many overlapping terminologies.
• I appreciate the clarity of the text. It has been fairly easy to understand, unlike most previous texts from the Strategy process which were indecipherable word salads. Please, keep it like that.
• It is painful to read because the sentences  are too long.

Acronyms:

• Please avoid words consisting of acronyms, such as MC, MCDC.
• Avoid abbreviations [i.e. acronyms] as much as possible.
• Request to use the [full terms] rather than [acronyms] which are not explained in this document such as MCDC, WMF, etc.

Visual representation:

• Will it be possible to visualize how the 45 MS initiatives match the 10 recommendations and the Charter? Maybe a family tree, or a flow-chart?
• I would like to see an organization chart of "now" versus "then".
• We need a chart of the intended new structure. I would expect the second one to be less crowded than the first one.
• I find that there is only text. It will take a bit of illustration to explain the relationships between the different bodies, i.e. the Wikimedia movement, the World Council and Hubs. It would be necessary to draw an organizational chart.
• This is a text-heavy document like all other charters. There should be some practical scenarios explained in an easy graphical format so that people who do not have an understanding of the English language are able to follow the basic meaning.

Translations

Translation-related feedback:

• Even if there is a consensus on using a certain specific word for anything, for example, "Hubs", the community suggested, it cannot work for us - if we speak in Urdu. Such words don't sound okay. We will incline to use relevant and more-accurate Urdu-language terms instead - for instance, markaz. Are we allowed to do that?
• It is preferable that translation is done by members who drafted the text in order to focus on conveying the meaning rather than providing the literal translation.
• Iit is mentioned [in R&R Chapter] that the Movement Charter will be written in "simple English". Would it be possible to replace "English" which is a language specific term by "language" for a better understanding since the final version will be multilingual?
• Write the charter in French at the base to avoid any problems related to translation.
• I'm grateful to the contributor who translated the Movement Charter on this step into my language.
• At least this Japanese translation document is not of a level that can be put out in public. Perhaps you instructed them to translate it literally?

Terms

Terms requiring definitions:

• No definition of the words and what they contain: value, hub, leadership, who do those things apply to?
• What is meant by “stakeholders”? [particularly in R&R].
• Words such as "Movement", Strategy, Charter etc are to be included in the proposed glossary of words.
• Illuminate the term "ratification" whenever the word comes up since it requires explanation all the time.
• Are chapters an “entity” or a “chapter of a course”? Or do you want to refer to local chapters? Need to be precise.
• The term 'entities' is mentioned in the first paragraph (Preamble) whereas, in the second paragraph all entities have been listed.
• In order to facilitate the reading, it will be better to have some complex terms defined in the footnotes on the same page.
• We are using multiple closely related terminologies like the Wikimedia movement, Wikimedia charter, and Wikimedia Movement Charter strategy. We should discuss their relationship at some place so that people can easily segregate them.
• A definition for the term "Free Knowledge" is missing.
• Does "free knowledge" mean open content? Then write so.
• Need for a clear definition of "Decentralization".
• Many of the words do have not exact meanings available in the local language ()
• The page on ‘community’ itself is an "outdated essay". Can there be a consensus on what makes a “community” first? Is every local project a community or is every affiliate/chapter/thematic organization a community?
• I did not see local chapters, affiliates, ecosystem, Wikimedia, words that are part of the jargon of the organization and which should appear.

The term “Movement” (mostly in the Preamble):

• Add references or cross-references that explain how the movement works and that direct to the texts for a direct and clear explanation. Since it's a free movement, it can lead states and countries to believe that everyone does what they want, whereas it's a structured organization.
• Does the Wikimedia movement need a definition, even if brief?
• The first sentence should, therefore, first explain what the Movement is and what it does. Furthermore, the Movement Charter is not there to describe but to define the Movement.

• What is the movement? What does it consist of? The term is unclear.
• What are the formalities to be a member of the wikimedia movement? When would readers be counted as members?
• It would be good to use the word "Organisation" instead of the word "Movement".
• When I think about the word movement I think also about bad organizations from the past. This can be because I come from Germany. If I talk to people I tell them about my involvement in the Wikimedia projects. So for me the Wikimedia projects are not a movement. This is a very political word. Please use another word instead. May you talk instead about Contributors or in German Beitragende.
  • RESPONSE: While I'm sympathetic to those concerns, we have been using the term "movement" for more than a decade within the community. For the last 5 years the term "Movement Strategy" has been the formal name of the process (Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20). I cannot see how we can make a drastic change around this when there is no critical mass to do so.
• 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 marketing speak (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).

Pronouns “We/Us/Our”:

• Avoid pronouns as much as possible.
• Who does the pronoun "we" refer to? It is used often, especially in Values & Principles, but it is not defined.
• The word "we" is vague and needs to be clarified, whom does it refer to?
• Who do "we" and "our" and other similar first person pronouns used in the whole document including the preamble refer to? Are the readers, teachers using any movement content in their classroom, Wikimedia researchers, organizers, or any singular or collective entity aligned to the "Values and Principles" part included in "us"? Are the "we" and the "stakeholders" from the movement strategy glossary the same?
• 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 (specifically addressed to the “Independence” principle).

Relatability

Tangible examples over abstract:

• The drafts are very vague, which opens a space for differences in interpretation and implementation, as they lack examples to clarify the idea and the possibility of application.
• I'm the sort of person who needs lots and lots of examples to go with more abstract texts. “Think of something like [...]”.
• The Movement Charter should have a sense of “dream” or aspiration, it is now written in a too “practical” manner.
• Available resources like the MCDC video clip does not help. As an especially helpful resource, “examples” are requested, and lots of them!
• I cannot do anything with the web forum as well as with the extensive pages and discussions on extensive pages and discussions on Meta-Wiki. It has all become very abstract for me, I miss the connection to my work in Wikipedia and to our concerns and wishes.

Negative opinions:

• "I just want to write articles here the way I'm used to, don't need and don't want any changes, because the working environment I'm used to suits me the way it is, and what WMF is saying there in America has nothing to do with my work and I don't care as long as they don't bother me” [6 upvotes].

Enforcement

Mandatory vs. optional:

• Will Preamble be applicable to everyone? Global North / Global South. If the government demands something to be changed in Wikipedia (like in Turkey), they do, but it doesn't happen elsewhere.
• Why is it not included that it is legally binding? Preamble says what the document is, so it could be included there.
• Will the Movement Charter include laws binding on all?
• What does the charter provide or will provide for as a [measure] to be taken against people who will [act] against these values and principles?
• After the ratification, are all Wikimedia entities bound to obey this? What if any rule of the local community or the UCoC itself goes against the values depicted in the charter? What if any entity (community or affiliate) decides to opt out of it? Our concern is, forcing everyone may reduce the degree of freedom of the entities and the value of people-centredness of the movement.
• Would there be a room for those affiliates that do not wish to adopt the Movement Charter?
• Preamble should have a sentence discussing its violation explicitly. What house of law is going to be considered if this is a legal document? The Charter's binding or non-binding nature should be addressed as well in the Preamble
• Please state the sanctions that apply to those who transgress these rules.
• How long will the charter be valid?
• We should specify how firm the implementation of this charter is going to be on the communities.
• What will be done to users or groups who don’t follow the guidelines of Movement Charter?  
• We should specify what sections of the charter are firm (non-negotiable) and the sections that are flexible with the possibility of amendments.
• If there is a change to the charter, will this impact the communities?

Legal implementation:

• Since not all things are identical globally, but the respective roles are often understood differently locally, it will be difficult to find rules that can be applied globally.
• What law was applied when reviewing the text by legal experts? There is the international customary law and the humanitarian law that all humanity agrees upon.
• Will the charter be in accordance with the legislation of each country? Or is it a global charter?
• How can the Movement Charter once drafted be changed if new issues arise, or a change of policy becomes desirable in the future?

Legal translations:

• Is it possible to adopt the Arabic version as a source in the future? Or does the English language remain the basis and the rest of the languages are derived from it?
• Suggestion: add a clause that in the event of difference in translation interpretation that the English version of the charter takes precedence.
• Which version will prevail above: English or Indonesian?
• Will the translated version be legally enforceable? For example, the UCoC has translations but they say that the English version is preferred.
• There should be clear instructions regarding the translations of the Movement Charter in the text itself. As the charter is a legal document and translating legal documents needs some extra degree of professionalism and at the same time, they are prone to change in the meaning, this issue should be addressed in the charter itself. Similar issue has been addressed in the Constitution of Bangladesh in Part XI (MISCELLANEOUS), 153(3), "... ... in the event of conflict between the Bengali and the English text, the Bengali text shall prevail".
• If the charter is going to be the central reference document, the community needs to understand if they are allowed to practice a regional translation of the charter or if the English version will be the central reference document. If the translations are allowed to be adopted the community would like to engage a professional legal advisor for regular review and feedback.
• I would really like to see a translation effort that does not rely on outside volunteers for this project.

Relation to Strategy, UCoC, and other docs

Strategic Direction & recommendations:

• Support for the review of the previous work of the working groups for the 2030 Movement Strategy, as well as for the hubs.
• Do not move backwards. The strategy recommendations were very clear. The MCDC does have the mandate to draft a charter, and a mandate to consult the powerful entities, WMF, AffCom, etc.
• Make sure that you are drawing on the work of the previous Movement Strategy working groups.
• The relationship between the Preamble and our vision & Wikimedia 2030 Strategy should be written clearly. Conclusions from the Wikimedia 2030 Strategy should be included, and we should prevent creating something new.
  • MCDC response: We recognise that this would be the form used for an article or an academic piece of work. However, the Preamble exists not just to be a preamble of the final Charter but to help both MCDC and Community in the process. We will no doubt make significant changes to the Preamble along the way, and will reconsider it as one of the last things the MCDC finalizes.
• We should look back and review the entire experience of creating the Movement Strategy. There were lots of documents produced, and a lot of content, and it seems like the same could have been achieved with fewer resources - human, financial, time, etc.  
• Missing from the preamble is a reference to the Strategic Direction and its broad aim. We realize that the charter will be designed to outlive the 2030 Movement Strategy, but some context on its origin, and the ideas of knowledge as a service and knowledge equity will serve as the value base of the whole document, and reaffirm the commitment of the movement. The reluctance to embrace the changes articulated in the 2030 Movement Strategy as part of the charter seems to come from a fear of lacking community support, especially from the established communities. However, we hope that the MCDC sees itself as agents of change, and dares to make bold proposals for the future, rather than to appease those that reject an opening of our movement.
• Is the MCDC committed to following the direction of the recommendations? Looking at some of the sessions planned, it looks like communities are supposed to put in their ideas on an empty board, even though there's already a full board from a 3-year-process. What I'm missing is any kind of brief by the MCDC about which direction this discussion is taking. Asking communities right now without any information surely risks opening up old discussions? It is not about the previous 5 years, it's more about not spending the next 5 years repeating the previous 5 years (Telegram).
• I find it a bit disconcerting that the recommendations aren't even mentioned in the MCDC drafting methodology, or the guiding principles, or their decision-making process. There’s no strong commitment towards honoring the movement-wide agreements the MCDC's legitimacy rests upon. Maybe the principle that the MCDC's work should be based on the recommendations was just considered too obvious to put in writing, but for the outside observer it's hard to tell whether it's that or the group claiming a mandate that would IMO go beyond what they actually received (Telegram).
• 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.
• The only communities which are thinking about the strategic direction of the movement are the ones that are well-established. That’s why most of the communities in South Asia have not been proactively participating in these discussions because they are still working on the expansion of their respective communities.
• What does the Wikimedia movement 2030 roadmap refer to and what is the difference with the Movement Charter that is being drafted? [Lack of understanding among emerging communities of what MS is].

Other documents:

• The Leadership Development Working Group is already helping to define what leadership means in our movement. It would make sense to have this definition in the Movement Charter.
• Will this document replace the terms of use?
• Defining the authority of the charter compared to the authority of the T&S team in terms of being a parallel authority? Or a follow-up authority? Or a higher power? These things must be mentioned in the preamble.
• Particularly about UCoC, would the charter always take precedence over the UCoC (and other local rules)? As the local rules that conflict with the UCoC should be revised according to the UCoC itself, if the charter takes precedence over the UCoC, the charter will automatically take precedence over any of the local rules.
• The Universal Code of Conduct should be included in the content of the charter.

Past discussions, wiki pages, research material for MCDC's consideration:

• Right To Fork: fundamental software freedoms
• Right to Vanish: community freedoms  

Drafting methodology

Feedback on the Drafting Methodology:

• We encourage the MCDC to find additional ways to ask the big questions and get input from communities before drafting a lot of language.
• As far as I can see, what we are asked to feed back on regarding Roles & Responsibilities is whether the MCDC is on the right track in introducing Hubs and the Global Council. Which is a question to which the answer is "yes", and which has obviously been "yes" since the moment the final recommendations were published  in early 2020. Surely the MCDC can generate some more detailed questions to consult on, without waiting several months to hear the fairly obvious answers to what is proposed so far?
• In the innovation spectrum, the Wikimedia movement is ending up in the laggard section, not the pioneer section. The community is arch conservative, resisting any change in the platform. Can you back up these sentences with lists or evidence of recent innovations and experiments?
• Do start substantive dialogue among yourselves, record, and publish your essays. Don't be shy. Start drafting substantive parts of the charter: appoint someone to draft, discuss afterwards.

Ratification

Feedback on the Ratification Methodology:

• The use of the term “ratification” to seek community approval may have been leading us on an erroneous path. In international agreements, “ratification” means that leaders negotiate and sign the agreement, and then take it back to their democratic institutions for final approval. Our movement lacks the consistent local governance structures to conduct ratification:
  • (a) Signatures for affiliates (and yes, those with governance structures will need to seek approval of their boards and memberships). At the affiliate level, we recommend that signing the charter be one condition for being an accredited Wikimedia organization. This is standard practice in many confederated movements.
  • (b) Engagement – The better the engagement process for both the established and the emerging and marginalized communities, the better the product and its legitimacy at the community level. Some good practices and recommendations can be found in the paper “Designing futures of participation in the Wikimedia Movement” written by Platoniq.
• Ratification needs to be done by users, as users do the work, not by affiliates or other corporate-style entities.
• Once the Charter is ready and accepted, it should be made easily accessible on the main pages of the various projects.
• A concern that the ratification process will not be truly democratic because not all the people involved will be reached. Participating in votes, opinion polls, elections, etc. presupposes that one receives the information.

Amendments:

• Should emphasize in the Preamble that the Movement Charter is something that would continue to develop and evolve, just like the UCoC.

Preamble feedback

Overall

General:

• The content is specialized. It should be more general. Instead of being specific.
• The preamble should be written at the end, why is it ready already?
• The preamble should be written at the end and fully reflect the content of the document. Something like a synopsis.
• In my culture, we do without preambles, as we believe preambles are “empty wordings”.

Defining the Movement Charter:

• At the beginning of the preamble, explain what the Wikimedia Movement is, Who belongs? Who doesn't? If the definition will come later, then the first sentence can be omitted.
  • MCDC response: The Preamble DG will propose a definition of the “Wikimedia Movement” to be added to the next set of drafts.
• The Preamble should focus more on having a complete explanation of the Movement Charter itself, including the Charter’s status and structure.
• The preamble feels generalistic, trying to reach many things, but does not make it clear what the scope of the Movement Charter is.
• The text is somewhat vague, on the matter of the distribution of power, which is still too little perceptible.
  • MCDC response: There will be dedicated chapters for the (re)distribution of power within the Movement. Were the Preamble to cover this in any detail, it would bloat in size unnecessarily.
• The definition of Movement Charter should have a comparison term to make it understandable for small local communities.
  • MCDC response: We do not believe that a single shared comparison term exists. The need for the Charter is to try and make it understandable, but it is a unique structural document - it does not have any true comparison. Nor will it define everything for local projects, and certainly not in the Preamble chapter.
• The preamble should also highlight the need for the charter and how it will change the governance of the movement and its growth in the future.
  • General question from almost all the participants in a session: How is this going to help our wiki community?
  • After all, how will the Movement Charter be helpful in promoting Hindi Wikipedia?

Addressing the “Who”:

• This is a preamble and it should contain who drafted the charter and not just who will ratify it or if the communities' agreement is included.
• I wonder how clear this preamble is to people not connected to the Wikimedia Movement. The word “Wikipedia” doesn't fall there, there are no specifics of any kind.
  • MCDC response: Wikipedia is a single project, so it would be inappropriate to single it out from others here. In regard to specifics, those will be covered by the individual chapters.
• We need to answer the question of who this document is for?
  • MCDC response: We like to describe this as an “inward-facing document”. To use an example shared by a community member participating in a regional conversation: if you’re a tourist to a country, you do not need to read that country’s charter. If you’re planning to become a citizen of a country, you should read its charter. Applying it to Wikipedia, for example: if you’re reading Wikipedia, you don’t need to know the charter. If you’re contributing to Wikipedia, you should know the charter.
• Who is the Charter for? Is it for everyone, volunteers or for affiliates and chapters?
  • MCDC response: The Charter is for everyone. Any claim that it is “just for volunteer editors” or “just for affiliates” or “just for the Foundation” is wrong (and is a fake division in any case).

Language:

• The chapter needs more clarity on certain terms. Since this is the big picture, from the preamble, the reader should know some details that will not be worth explaining in the other following parts.
  • MCDC response: We specifically agree that terms need more clarity. These originated both with the original draft and with translated versions. We will be re-writing to try and clarify on these, as well as providing dedicated feedback to translators to help reduce these issues and including the terms in a glossary for the Charter.
• The word 'wiki' doesn't appear at all in the preamble, except as part of 'Wikimedia', requiring clunky euphemisms like 'knowledge repositories' to replace it. That's something that would be easy to fix with a simple click of the edit button. I'd suggest that 'wiki' be defined as "an online platform that volunteer users can collaboratively edit". Capturing the volunteer nature of the wikis is important, and probably should also be in the preamble somewhere.
  • Response by another user: I would also not want the movement to be captive to a narrow scope based on what we are doing today. “Wiki” is what got us here and we should have collaborative and participatory values, but there is no good reason to be so pedantic and restrictive going forward.
  • Response by another user: If things change in the future, the text can be adjusted based on that new information and reality.
  • MCDC response:  “Wikis and other platforms” would be the most accurate and inclusive of present and future scenarios. The MCDC will work on a definition of “wiki” for the next iteration.

Paragraph 1

"The Wikimedia movement is focused on developing, curating and expanding the global availability of free knowledge."

Feedback on this passage:

• Suggestion to present the movement itself a bit more precisely, how it was created and what projects it concerns. Also mention Wikipedia as an encyclopedia at the very beginning, and only in the next paragraph go to the description of what the Movement Charter is.
  • MCDC response: History of the Projects/Movement is a complex and a disputed story. We can’t readily include that within the Preamble. We firmly disagree with the inclusion of a Wikipedia-specific reference because Wikipedia is one of many projects within the Wikimedia movement.
• This doesn't really capture the nature of the movement: which is not just about free knowledge, but it's about the permissionless and collaborative creation of free knowledge. That “collaboration” is at the core of the movement, and isn't reflected here.
  • MCDC response: Will include reference to the core nature of collaboration in the next draft. Gratis and libre are core to the very nature of Wikimedia. Also, the “Value and Principles” will cover more of this.
• Alternative definition suggested: “We in the Wikimedia movement work to develop common information/culture projects in the public domain for people everywhere to benefit from”.
• If we skip the formalities if we don’t go into form but into the structure, then I think the first sentence properly states the most important thing. It’s clear to me, and I think it is perfectly clear to anyone who’s already part of the movement.
• It should be the availability of free and fair use knowledge (e.g. referenced information and fair use images).
  • MCDC response: We agree with “availability of free knowledge” but “fair use knowledge” might not be accurate.
• I'd expect some mention of Wikimedia being an open volunteer movement, and some gesture towards the "anyone can edit" philosophy or wikis. Or maybe just to quote the Vision, which may be worth putting somewhere in the preamble.
• Use free knowledge as a thematic term for the movement because the term actually represents the movement.

"The Wikimedia Movement Charter exists to define the Wikimedia movement, its core values and principles."

Feedback on this passage:

• The word "core" needs to be explained, who decides what is “core” or important?
  • MCDC response: Everyone collectively decides on those values. The core values are stated in the Values chapter, and the broadest possible ratification will take place. If you ratify them, then you will be deciding they’re important. If you think they are not important, then you can oppose ratification (or propose changes beforehand, during the community consultation!). The term “core” will be replaced with “fundamental” for ease of translation.
• It should be "evolving" core values and principles - reflecting the dynamic and changing scenario.
• It is a mistake to define two different things in one paragraph, namely: 1. the Wikimedia movement, and 2. the Movement Charter. Each needs a separate paragraph to define them.
  • MCDC response: Agree with this suggestion; we will amend this in the next draft.
• This is a convoluted sentence.

“It is a formal social agreement explaining the relationships between entities within the movement and their rights and responsibilities”

Feedback on this passage:

• “Formal social agreement”:
  • If it's "a formal social agreement," then is it binding?
    • MCDC response: This should have been clearer. Some aspects are to be binding, but the level of what is and what isn’t, is still in development in other sections. This will specifically need rewriting at the conclusion of the drafting of the Charter as a whole.
  • Can you elaborate what the thinking was behind the term “formal social agreement”? It can mean anything and nothing.
  • The Charter, when ratified, will be a formal and binding agreement, and not only a "social agreement". Suggesting deleting the word "social"?
    • MCDC response: While the nature of what is binding is currently unclear, this is a fair point and we agree with the removal of the word “social”. It is being explicitly ratified by a majority of the key Movement stakeholders (or it won’t exist).
  • The Charter is not an agreement, but maybe an agreement will emerge from the Charter. We can create an agreement based on the essence of the Charter, i.e. the essence of the constitution, but it is not an agreement in itself.
  • What’s meant by a “formal social agreement”?
  • What does "formal" mean? Does this follow enforcement and if so, how strict are the rules?
    • MCDC response: The nature of what is binding and what is not, as well as the nature of the enforcement will be laid out in future chapters of the Charter, notably in “Amendments and Implementation”. The Preamble will be updated prior to ratification once we have that detail.
  • Let’s be clear and create a binding agreement, for existing and future legal entities of the movement to agree to by signature and to honor. Remove the term “social” agreement, as it refers to implicit agreements, when we are deliberately creating an explicit one.
    • Response by another use: Might the terms “implicit” and “explicit” be useful for direct use in the preamble in this context? For constituents or stakeholders that are legal entities, explicit agreements are important. But for volunteer or anonymous editors, who are covered by Terms of Use simply by navigating to our sites, we could state that they are implicitly covered by aspects of the Movement Charter.
• “Entities”:
  • I think the notion of “entities” is far too wide.
  • The term "entities" needs to be explained.
  • What is meant by “entities” here?
    • MCDC response: this may be clarified by an improvement on explaining what the Wikimedia Movement is. It is also intended to be somewhat broad in scope in order to include future bodies, but we will work to improve its clarity.

"This applies equally to both existing entities and those to be established."

Feedback on this passage:

• The future tense here may sound confusing after the Charter is implemented and those new entities are functioning.
• It is 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, or?  
  • MCDC response: Point accepted, we will add it to the Charter by explicitly noting that the Charter applies to the future. We will also work to reduce and remove issues like this across the Charter to make it clearer.

Paragraph 2

General:

• The focus of the second paragraph seems to be unclear. Suggestion to focus on explaining clearly the status of the Movement Charter, and its relationship with other regulations of the Movement.

“The Charter exists with the agreement of the communities governed by it”.

Feedback on this passage:

• The expression "governed by it" doesn't indicate a reassuring sense of democracy. Suggestion to rephrase: "the Charter exists in agreement with the movement communities".
• Suggestion to change to: "The Charter was prepared by community members from many countries, coming from various Wikimedia projects. Community consensus was obtained in the ratification process, thanks to which it is universally binding".
  • MCDC response: Accepted the suggestion.

“through a formal ratification process”

Feedback on this passage:

• What does “ formal ratification process” mean?
  • MCDC response: A detailed Ratification Methodology proposal will be published in March 2023, including further clarifications on this.
• What is a formal ratification process?
• In the first sentence, information about the formal ratification process is unnecessarily combined, this should be the next sentence.
  • MCDC response: Accepted the suggestion.

"The Movement Charter applies to all members, entities and technical spaces within the Wikimedia movement."

Feedback on this passage:

• “All members, entities”
  • Define what is meant by “members and entities”.
  • The use of "members" may be confusing. We're not formally "members" of anything (except for affiliate members, I suppose). We normally use terms like "contributors" or "participants”.
    • MCDC response: Accepted the suggestion. Will change “members” to “participants” (and detail intent to translators that this word is supposed to cover individuals that include content contributors, with “entities” covering the groups/bodies).
  • My group consists of content contributors and offline activity organizers, but the AffComm rejected us as a user group. We would still like to continue doing these offline activities, but will we be recognized by the Movement Charter according to the definition above?
    • MCDC response: the individuals within it would be recognised as any other participants. The recognition of specific entities will be handled by one or more other bodies detailed later in the Charter.
• “Technical spaces”
  • What is meant by technical spaces?
  • Is the application of the charter reserved for the technical space and not the other spaces?
  • The term "technical spaces" (and "spaces" more generally) is confusing. I don’t really know what it refers to.
  • It is not clear why "technical spaces" is singled out/specified, there shouldn’t be specifications in this sentence. Suggestion to rephrase: "for all members and entities, including the technical spaces".
  • The Movement Charter does not seem to cover off-wiki spaces (eg: Telegram groups). The applicable areas of the Movement Charter should be the same as the UCoC.
    • MCDC response: The drafting group will give examples of those “official off-wiki spaces” and use the UCoC enforcement guidelines definition of purely official off-wiki spaces (as part of otherwise recognised affiliates/technical spaces).

“including but not limited to content contributors, projects, affiliates, and the Wikimedia Foundation”.

Feedback on this passage:

• The word "including" should be removed.
  • MCDC response: This is a translation issue. To be considered by the MSG Team in the upcoming translations.
• The term 'content contributors' is not clear. Who is referred to, are they volunteers?
  • MCDC response: Will change from “content contributors” to participants. The definition of participants is given above (volunteer content contributors, technical space editors, but would even cover things like paid content editors), and it will be included in the glossary.
• Do not include "content contributors": If I don't agree with this Charter, would it be impossible for me to contribute to Wikimedia content?
  • MCDC response: Pure disagreement is not an issue by itself. As an example, someone can disagree with the Universal Code of Conduct, but it still applies to them (and a person can continue editing without issues). The nature of how the Charter is binding will be covered in later chapters.
• "including, but not limited to, content contributors": this invisibilizes all non-male contributors.
  • MCDC response: This is a translation issue. To be considered by the MSG Team in the upcoming translations.
• Who else is included in the "community”, since you use "including but not limited to"? If it is to be “formal”, it is necessary to specify and list all stakeholders.
  • MCDC response: new stakeholders join both projects and the Movement over time. It is not possible for us to list every stakeholder that might exist as part of a community or movement.

Paragraph 3

General:

• The focus of the third paragraph seems to be unclear. Suggestion to focus on explaining the structure of the Movement Charter.
• From the third paragraph the content becomes a bit wordy for people who do not have a large vocabulary.
• Recommendation to rewrite the third paragraph to clearly acknowledge the independent self governance of communities/projects, and how it relates or doesn't relate to the charter.

"To achieve our focus"

Feedback on this passage:

• Replace "To achieve our focus" with: “to achieve our mission”.
• Does one "achieve" a "focus"? I think this is a misuse of the word "focus".
• I recommend sharper phrasing for brevity. I recommend replacing "To achieve our focus, the" by "The".

MCDC response: Will strike the entire clause of “to achieve our focus”.

"The movement has developed a wide range of knowledge repositories (“the projects”) in multiple languages with different focuses.”

Feedback on this passage:

• “movement has developed a wide range of knowledge repositories”
  • That's factually incorrect, more precisely a hysteron proteron: There have been projects before anything which could be named as a “movement” (if there is any) ever existed. It is disputed whether there is really a social wiki movement. No matter, this sentence has to be rephrased to reflect the correct order. Or maybe use a different word than “developed”: like “contributed to”, “fostered”, etc.
  • Saying that the movement “created a range of repositories” is untrue: because projects were first created, and then communities emerged as self-organized, then the Foundation appeared.
• MCDC response: Will table this feedback for further consideration among the MCDC.
• “Knowledge repositories”
  • "Repositories" is a difficult word to understand and translate.
  • Vocabulary of describing projects as "knowledge repositories" is welcome. It leaves room for potential future expansion while encompassing what we have now.
  • Not all projects are knowledge repositories themselves, some (the Mediawiki software project, Meta-Wiki, and to a lesser extent Wiki Lambda, Commons, and Wikidata) exist to aid the "knowledge repository" projects .
  • The knowledge repositories are wikis, call them that rather than using a euphemism.
  • "The projects" are defined here as "knowledge repositories", then stated that the projects are self-governing. Knowledge repositories can't be self-governed. "The local communities at a project" can be self-governed, but "the projects" can't. Are informal groups also self-managed? What about organizations/affiliates?
  • Replace “knowledge repositories” → “mostly MediaWiki powered knowledge repositories”. Since the Wikimedia movement started with the UseModWiki (Jan 2001 to June 2002) and later moved to MediaWiki (July 2002), the word "MediaWiki" or only "wiki" should be mentioned at least once. Maybe in the future, we'll find newer and more user-friendly software like we moved to MediaWiki from UseModWiki, the "wiki software" deserves to be mentioned at least once.

MCDC response: Will table this feedback for further consideration among the MCDC.

"The projects are largely self-governed, with respect to content creation and management,[1] as well as community conduct."

Feedback on this passage:

• A lack of full self-governance would result from reserving the right of intervention in the event of a project community departing from the values expressed in the Charter. The terms and conditions of such intervention should be specified in the Charter.
  • MCDC response: This will be elaborated in other sections (Decision-making and/or Amendments & Implementation and/or Global Council).
• If it's "largely self-governed," what parts are NOT self-governed? The Legal alternative phrasing or the use of "autonomous" would beg less questions and be clearer.
• What is the difference between “self governed” and “built with a system of self-governance” - does it explain why it would be better?
  • MCDC response: The term “self-governed” will be retained in the next draft.
• Projects are community-governed using rules and regulations that undergo community consensus and with movement-wide rules, such as but not limited to the Universal Code of Conduct, and not "self-governed" as the draft mentions.
• There must be policies that define autonomy. Projects are largely self-governing (by their communities), and it is difficult for old active members in the community to accept intervention, e.g. by the Foundation. Therefore, clear and explicit conditions must be set for interventions.
  • MCDC response: The intervention’s nature needs to be clarified, but not in the preamble; it will be covered by Roles & Responsibilities and/or Decision-Making. Per the subsidiarity principle, we don't need policies defining what is legitimate self-governance. Everything is legitimate, unless it's in an exceptional class.
• It would be necessary to clarify that even if the projects are self-managed, there are a number of rules to which each community is obliged to comply without restrictions.
• This is problematic both in that it isn't clear enough that certain areas are definitively community-governed (such that the WMF may not intervene), and that certain areas are within the WMF's scope of authority and responsibility (as they've noted). Presumably, the Charter will clearly outline the scope of each group's responsibilities, so this part of the preamble should extend this bit by making a direct reference to those parts of the Charter.
• I don't think that "largely self-governed" is appropriate since there are rules that limit content management and there is a global ban policy that is not initiated by the communities' projects.
  • MCDC response: The term “largely” is intentional here, in order to avoid using weaker language such as “normally self-governed”. The exact limits of self-governance are also intentionally left vague, because they vary from one project to another and are impossible to describe entirely in this space.
• Wondering how to clarify what role the WMF does have whilst the project communities are autonomously managing the content itself. Would the Preamble add a sentence that clarifies that lawsuits should be directed at the WMF and not at project communities?
  • MCDC response: Those aspects are too specific to be addressed in the Movement Charter, which is a high level document. Moreover, the Preamble is not the place to include that.
• Suggestion to add a sentence to address the legal aspect when it comes to self-governance. For example: although content is mostly self and community-governed, official Foundation channels still exist to address legal concerns and fulfill legal obligations.
  • MCDC response: This is going to be covered in the Charter as a whole, but not specifically in this chapter. The drafting group will consider adding a reference to certain (global / minimum) standards that are required in legal aspects, such as compliance with the Terms of Use.
• In terms of content, we are not responsible for content - is that the same for the foundation? Who is ultimately responsible?
  • MCDC response: Content is the primary self-governance responsibility of communities. It would be hard to see other responsibilities being self-governed, if not handling content. The Foundation’s involvement in content is very strictly limited to specific legal obligations, and its involvement is minimized even there.
• Suggestion was to include specific reference to WMF (and Global Council?) as systems / infrastructure around content creation and management. Communities don't have ideas about GC; too early to introduce to the community.
  • MCDC response: This will specifically be reviewed after the Global Council chapter has been written, but inclusion of mention is likely in the final/full Charter.
• Is the management of content one-way or two-way? It allows bodies such as the Wikimedia Foundation to interfere in the local project, so areas where the Foundation can be involved should be identified e.g., dealing with external parties or paid content.
  • MCDC response: This will be addressed in more detail in other chapters, such as Roles & Responsibilities. The Wikimedia Foundation’s involvement is likely to be held to legal obligations and community requests or participant safety, that cannot be viably handled at local level.
• This is ambiguous about whether it's "[content creation] and [management]" or "content [creation and management]". Both are true and important, and should be made clear. I'd probably use "administration" somewhere in there. This bit should show that the community oversees its content and runs itself (eg, in local policy, user rights management, templating, gadgets, blocks and patrolling and procedures and so on).
  • MCDC response: Accepted the suggestion, and will reword for clarity.
• I recommend sharper phrasing for brevity. I recommend replacing “with respect to content creation and management, as well as community conduct" by the simpler "with respect to content creation, management, and community conduct".
  • MCDC response: Will change the sentence to “to content creation, content management, and community conduct”.
• As stated, governments usually have issues when dealing with non-incorporated entities. And corporate identities intending to conduct independent (self-governed) activities usually have issues with governments. I think we need to decide where to place legal liability: to the corporate structure (WMF), thus increasing corporate risk and complexity, or to incorporating projects or subsidiaries, delegating potential conflicts to where they can be resolved, but thus decreasing independence. I'd believe in the approach of federated incorporated bodies. Dealing with multiple governments ensures that at least one version independent from any particular government exists. I doubt that - in the current trend of regulating information - non-incorporated bodies (like projects) will be allowed to publish or act on the long term.
  • MCDC response: The current structure of legal liabilities is fine - it is rather a question of awareness. There are also legal limitations regarding the liability related to the website hosting under certain jurisdictions.
• Incomprehensible paragraph: "Largely self-governed", in what way? Will the Charter cover them or not?
  • MCDC response: Projects, whether local or not, are covered by the Movement Charter. The MCDC will rethink good terminology around different levels of projects.
• Is it then necessary to mention the Wikimedia Foundation as a body that is in charge of projects, but does not necessarily supervise them, except in cases of abuse/violence/hate speech and the like?
  • MCDC response: The MCDC does not agree necessarily that the Foundation is “in charge of the projects.”
• It is necessary to appeal to the five pillars. Concerns like copyright, defamation, or facetious use of the projects are all covered in the pillars and internal policies of each project, which the community has been successful in following as principles of self-management.
  • MCDC response: The Five Pillars are not a globally-accepted set of rules. They can be different from one project to another, and from one language to another. Some don’t even have the Five Pillars, or they use different names/policies to make up for them.

Suggested rephrasing, based on the footnote question:

• No change to the current suggestion:
  • Agree to rephrase.
  • The communities are largely self-governed in practice. The Foundation does not enforce the rules unless it is required by law. Small communities might have some rules imposed, but large ones diverge from generic principles and create their own. As long as communities prove they can be civil and handle their own problems they are self-governed.
  • This sentence is accurate and should not be changed. It reflects reality.
• Agreement with Legal’s suggestion:
  • I don't think the formulation suggested by Legal is either correct or incorrect from the European law perspective. Their comment is about the risk of a certain perception, and there is such a risk, but it is impossible to say how big or how small. If you'd like to address the risk, it can be easily accepted as a version or rewording of what the MCDC had proposed. To me, though, the preamble is grounded more in vision and foundational concepts, and this part reads more like general provisions or context sections of a document.
  • "I’m good with the replacement [i.e. with Legal’s proposal].
• Proposal: “...with respect to content creation and management,[1] as well as community conduct. Wikimedia Foundation provides the legal framework. OR; Wikimedia Foundation is responsible for the interaction with legal bodies (harsher)”.
• Suggested alternatives to “self-governed”: "Autonomous”, “Projects largely act independently", “User-governed” [counterpoint to “user-governed”: Licensing, anti-spam, NPOV, BLP, etc. are all governed globally].
• Given that this is a future-looking document, maybe it should reflect "intention" rather than stating the status quo. Therefore, rather than "The projects are largely self-governed..." maybe something along the lines of "The projects intend to be largely self-governed.
• Replace "largely" with "with what is consistent with the basics and laws", or remove it altogether because it’s legally elastic.
• Suggested wording, "The projects are empowered by WMF on self governance model, with respect to content creation...".
• While I understand a lawyer's inclination towards the most empty words possible - The projects are built with systems of self-governance - I agree with the MCDC belief that the general original meaning needs to remain while satisfying Legal’s concerns. Perhaps we could use something like The projects are largely self-governed with respect to content creation, community conduct, and management, but subject to global community oversight and subject to formal entities* responsible for legal compliance. I'm not thrilled with the phrase "formal entities", I invite legal or anyone else to insert a better phrase in that spot. I also added mention of global community oversight, as there is established practice of global consensus overriding local governance (i.e the revoking abusive Croatian Admins).
  • MCDC response: The drafting group agrees that the wording is better than our original phrasing. We do think it needs some further tweaks, such as with “global community oversight”, as well as the poster’s point about “entities”.
• Suggestion to rephrase: "In terms of creating and maintaining content, projects are self-governed if this does not violate copyrights and other content rights or the personal rights of a particular person and remains in compliance with the legal frameworks.
• Suggestion to rephrase: "The local communities at an online project primarily engage in content creation and curation and usually make their own decisions about their internal organization and activities. They also receive help from other individuals, groups, and organizations in the movement, and in turn, they provide help to others in the movement".
• Suggestion to rephrase: “...in practice, the groups function as…”.
• Suggestion to rephrase: "Projects that manage their own household affairs".
• Suggestion to rephrase: “The participants in the project are acting in compliance with the legal obligations of the State of California, USA. We also create and manage content in compliance with the law”.
• The word "mostly" is useful if intervention is needed due to misuse of the project. Perhaps, as an alternative, you can go in the direction of, "Always following the basic common idea, principles and values, projects are guided by the principle of self-management in their regular work".
• Suggestion to rephrase: "The projects are constructed through an autonomous system, and through the practice of community autonomy, the legal rights and interests of different stakeholders are properly protected".

General MCDC response to rephrasing suggestions: We continue to believe that “largely self-governed” is relatively clear, as much as a not fully settled point can be. We can’t create a flawless, generic definition of what “largely” means here, since self-governance is different from one project to another.  

“The movement also includes both organized and informal groups”.

Feedback on this passage:

• What are some examples of the "organized and informal groups" mentioned?
• Who or what are these organized and informal groups?
• Did not really understand what they mean by organized and informal groups in the values and principles.
• Who assigned a role to the organized and informal groups? Hasn't everyone who participates chosen their own task? People will not agree if someone ascribes a role to them, especially WMF.

MCDC response: Technically, user groups are formal (they have a degree of recognition), whereas something like "Wikiproject Greek Literature" or the Featured Article/Picture/etc groups/processes would be informal groups.

“focused on specific matters or geographic regions”

Feedback on this passage:

• Consider replacing "subjects" in the third paragraph.
  • MCDC response: Will use “topics” instead.
• “The movement also includes organized and informal groups focused on specific issues or geographic regions”. Do you mean region-focused or specific themes?
  • MCDC response: “Topics” are intended to be broad: including content topics, regional focuses, as well as a broader use, such as technical topics.

“The role of these groups is to support the projects directly and indirectly.”

Feedback on this passage:

• I recommend sharper phrasing for brevity.  I recommend replacing "support the projects directly and indirectly" by "support the projects".
  • MCDC response: Either “direct” and “indirect” aspects are possibilities for supporting projects.
• The aspects of direct and indirect support should be included.
• In the last sentence, we are missing the "individuals", who are part of the movement and support the projects directly and indirectly without being part of any groups, formal or informal.
  • MCDC response: “Individuals” are included in the reference “these groups”.

Paragraph 4

General:

• The focus of the paragraph seems to be unclear. Suggestion to focus on explaining where the Charter legitimacy comes from.
  • MCDC response: The current focus of the paragraph is quite different from “explaining where the Charter legitimacy comes from”.
• It is unclear why the fourth paragraph about the infrastructure has to be in a preamble, or in the charter at all. Recommendation to remove.
  • MCDC response: Without this paragraph, the role of the Wikimedia Foundation (although not directly mentioned now) in the infrastructure of the projects remains unclear. We should perhaps have made that clearer when written - currently the WMF is a huge aspect of the infrastructure, but is subject to significant change during the other chapters.
• The last paragraph looks like an explanation of what infrastructure will cover but why is the preamble exclusively talking about infrastructure and not about the overall scope of the Charter and everything related to the movement- its support, scope, growth, and sustainability?
• The last paragraph from the infrastructure is not clear.
• As a minimum, remove the last sentence of this section.
  • MCDC response: This is a critical last sentence.
• Instead of repeating "The infrastructure" five times in the paragraph, is it possible to put a comma after the first one and organize the statements in a bullet list?
  • MCDC response: Will consider this feedback in the later drafts.

Term “infrastructure”:

• What is global infrastructure? And why does it make the difference with respect to the rest of the Movement? Does this letter affect this infrastructure?
• Not entirely sure what the “infrastructure" part is getting to? It feels like it's an indirect way to say something. I took it to be about some combination of global code of conduct and setting a minimum standard for environment and project, e.g. the Croatian Wikipedia situation.
• What does the infrastructure mean? It is necessary to detail.
• Is the "comprehensive infrastructure" that the draft Charter speaks of include the Wikimedia Foundation, the Global Council, the Hub/s, the current committees, and other committees? If not, what is this "comprehensive infrastructure"?
• What is the infrastructure?
• In-depth explanation of the term infrastructure is needed.
• What does infrastructure mean? Is it the entire foundation?
• The 'infrastructure' is not explained simply enough for a newbie to understand. Consider including more concrete details on what it is and how it works.
• That's way too many consecutive sentences starting with "The infrastructure", it doesn't read nicely. Additionally, after reading through this paragraph, I'm still not sure exactly what "the infrastructure" is even referring to.
• It is necessary to define and explain the infrastructure. It suddenly appears without anyone knowing what it is. Hence our astonishment and our suspicion in relation to this infrastructure, which can be for profit.
• What is "infrastructure"? What does it consist of? Why is she personified? Is it a matter of incorrect translation?
• The definition and meaning of "integrated infrastructure" is unclear and incomprehensible.

MCDC response to all feedback regarding the term “infrastructure”: The MCDC  recognizes the ambiguity and many similar issues associated with the term “infrastructure” that were widely reported in the community consultation. We will work on a significant rewrite of the paragraph to mitigate these issues.

“Supplementing these projects and groups is a comprehensive infrastructure with several roles.”

Feedback on this passage:

• What does “several roles” mean in this sentence?
• What does this mean? It's a bit vague, and difficult to explain.
• It can be put more simply: "The Wikimedia movement relies on infrastructure that fulfills the following roles: [list them here]”.
• Replace "several" with "different" or "various”.
• Please name the projects or groups that will be supplemented.
  • MCDC response: It is not possible to re-list here all the impacted stakeholders.

“The infrastructure supports the technical needs of the movement.”

Feedback on this passage:

• "The infrastructure supports the technical needs of the movement." should be changed to "The infrastructure supports the technical and other needs of the movement".
• It has been mentioned that infrastructure provides technical Support, and in the next paragraph's next line, it is mentioned that infrastructure provides financial and other resources. Why not club it all in one sentence?
  • MCDC response: A lot of the other feedback indicates the need to break the paragraph down into more sentences/clauses, rather than combine them.
• Do "technical needs" mean keeping Wikipedia on the internet, or is it broader than that? For example, technical expertise needs such as: legal support, planning, or fundraising; technical infrastructure needs such as laptops and cameras for Wikipedia editors or wi-fi for editing events.
  • MCDC response: It would not be limited to “keeping Wikipedia on the internet”. There are technical areas that this “infrastructure” may help with. They will vary by project, and with time. Most of them wouldn’t be absolute or non-negotiable “needs”. The drafting group will try to clarify in the next draft.

“The infrastructure endeavors to promote legal and regulatory environments that enable the movement, and the entities within it, to operate around the world.”

Feedback on this passage:

• What is the meaning of “legal and regulatory environments”? Does this mean the movement will support the existence of affiliates legally, for example? Does this statement lead to the intervention of the global body of the foundation in the legal matters of countries? Does it refer to protecting wikimedians when they face imprisonment or legal accountability, or to something else altogether? In that case, it may hold political nature and may cause political problems.
  • MCDC response: The sentence will be elaborated more in the next draft. It has been understood to be about advocacy, which was not the original intention.
• What/where is the legal and regulatory environment?
• What is the Foundation’s role in regard to “Enhancing legal and regulatory environments”? In addition to financial support, how does the movement promote these environments? What happened recently in the Arabic community directly affected the safety of the environment of Arabic Wikipedians.
  • MCDC response: This would be addressed in other chapters of the Movement Charter, such as Roles & Responsibilities. The MCDC will Check back in later drafts to ensure those points are captured somewhere across the Charter.

"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."

Feedback on this passage:

• I can't see the subject of the action for each clause. Please avoid long sentences - the paragraph, overall, is also too long.
  • MCDC response: Accepted the feedback and working on simplifying the sentence structure for the next draft.
• The sentence should be changed to: "The infrastructure also supports content contributors, readers, and all others who are part of the global Wikimedia movement by promoting and advancing a safe, collaborative and productive environment in which knowledge can be shared and consumed".
• "where it is not feasible for a local project to do so itself" - why, if a local project is independent and has the ability for self-governance?
• “where it is not feasible for a local project to do so itself” - This sentence is not necessary.
• The sentence needs to be simplified.
• I don't know what this whole sentence is referring to.
• "readers, and all others who are part of the global Wikimedia movement": this takes a firm stance that all of our readers are part of the movement. I'm not sure this is a workable definition/boundary.
  • MCDC response: Fair point. The distinction between readers and other parts of the movement should be made more clear. However, it would be important to state as a distinct point that there is infrastructure for readers. Support for people making use of our knowledge.
• "promoting and advancing": I think "promoting" could be removed without losing anything.

"The nature and extent of the infrastructure support is limited by the movement’s values, resources, and restrictions imposed outside of the movement."

Feedback on this passage:

• Perhaps the support should be aligned with the values, or “framed” by them, but not 'limited' by the values.
  • MCDC response: For values to have weight, they must act as guardrails that cannot simply be overridden by otherwise good-faith infrastructure actions.
• I have the ambition that the Preamble be concise and inspirational.  
  • MCDC response: Agreement regarding practical understanding. There needs to be a system of values and priorities. Not everything is achievable in every situation. Here, we must prioritize clarity (working and translating in many languages).
• The Preamble should end on something more inspiring.
  • MCDC response: May be considered at a later stage in the drafting process.
• What is meant by 'restrictions imposed from outside the movement'? Is that Government and legal regimes, etc.? Wonder if there's a way to say that differently, e.g. 'external environment'.
• What are the "external restrictions" mentioned?
• What's meant by "restrictions imposed outside of the movement"?
• I don't see what this sentence adds here, especially the latter bits.
• More clarification on the last sentence of the preamble which seems to me to be general.
  • MCDC response: Agree to define more clearly / explicitly the nature of the external restrictions.

Values & Principles feedback

Overall

General:

• Values and Principles should be treated as different parts.
• I agree, the "Values and Principles" chapter. It sounds like the 5 Pillars, but developed.
• Very good and clear chapter. It deviates from the preamble, is simpler and more understandable.

Practical applications:

• Very extensive discussion of how this applies to a specific region, i.e. Latin America, especially through definitions such as equity, inclusiveness, and concepts such as subsidiarity.
• I do not care if some of the Values and Principles are missing. They should only represent the idea behind the movement and how it thrives. You cannot make everyone happy. You should rather teach people how to read the values as an idea behind the organization .
• It would be surprising to find someone that doesn't agree with these values since they are not new. But does that mean it's too vague, not specific enough? The question here is how to make people accountable. How do we implement subsidiarity?
• The values can be further expanded to incorporate more information about how they relate to Movement Charter.

MCDC response: Will implement the following mitigations:

• • Keep the values and principles in mind when drafting other chapters.
  • Work on clearer definitions of each value, maybe with an elaboration on examples of how it is implemented.
  • Allude to the values and principles in the Preamble.

Movement Strategy principles:

• Please write one or more essays explaining what necessitates changing the older versions of Values and Principles on Meta? [apparently, MS principles] (Survey).
• The values and principles seem to be focused on the editing community, while Phase II ones are more focused on the organizational part.
• The Movement Strategy Principles are an integral part of the recommendations and result from the merging of the principles developed by each of the nine working groups. It is not entirely clear why the MCDC felt compelled to spend time writing new, yet similar principles. Some of them still need work in terms of wording, and could be phrased more strongly (“everyone feels valued”). That said, we commend the MCDC for making these a bit less wordy. Make the wording strong and aspirational, and more reflective of the values of Movement Strategy.
  • Response by another user: I concur with the comments from WMDE - there is excellently crafted text at Movement Strategy/Principles that has been worked on by many people over a long time and has been quality checked for understandability and readability. It would be ideal to build on that work and incorporate it here.

MCDC response: The Values & Principles in the Movement Charter are built on the Movement Strategy Principles, but contextualized for the Movement Charter. They are not mutually exclusive, but complementary.

Balancing / contradictions:

• It holds inherent contradictions, e.g., fact orientation vs. opinions/beliefs in the context of "marginalized knowledge". Example: images of Mohammed: such decisions should not be decided based on sensitivities. The exact implementation should be left to the individual projects.
• The fact that there is counter-balancing between the Values & Principles could use an explicit mention.

MCDC response: The MCDC will make explicit the balancing nature of the values (for example, transparency and privacy) in the intro before diving into the list of values.

Potentially-missing principles

Privacy, safety & security:

• Privacy and Safety: how does a contributor know what to share and what not to share? Will this be put in the Core Values?
• Is there any value about security or digital safety?
• Anonymity & secure editing is considered a missing principle [counter comment: anonymity as a principle is fine, but it can be abused easily].
• Add a Privacy section as it is one of the main principles, including both online and offline privacy for the users.
• One important point is missing is the Privacy of users and readers as well.
• Privacy is one of the major things associated with our movement. It has been entirely missed.
• The community also emphasized the importance of privacy and how that will be ensured in the movement.
• Safety and Security should be included in the Core Values. Free knowledge and open source comes with problems which need safety and security assurance.
• Consider that the editor’s safety should be one of our priorities and it is a fit to be mentioned in this chapter.
• The safety/ Privacy of Users and readers is missing here.
• Add 'privacy of users and readers’ as a core value for the movement.

MCDC response: The MCDC agrees that Privacy should be included in the Charter; re-assess the Movement Strategy Principles to see what can be recycled.

Transparency:

• We might add something that indicates that openly visible *process* is strongly preferred. E.g., talk pages over private emails, publicized channels vs. private discussions, sharing out what might originally have been discussed privately, etc. The current "Accountability" section feels like transparency after a process, while we also need transparency *during* the process.
• Transparency is considered a missing principle [+1]. It would be important to specifically mention financial transparency as it is needed for community decision making.
• Missing is transparency, which is increasingly important for our movement as a way to build trust and participation in the communities, as well as to assure donor trust in the context of diversifying fundraising.
• Transparency should go with accountability. No need of including transparency as [a separate] value.

MCDC response: The MCDC  agrees that Transparency should be included in the Charter (right now, Transparency is a means to Accountability). The MCDC will also re-assess the Movement Strategy Principles to see what can be reused from there.

People-centeredness:

• People-centered approach is missing here, it would be interesting to know why? [to the response that “it’s part of inclusivity”: It's different when people's centeredness is not front and center].
• The previous diversity working group of the MS called out people-centeredness as one of the key points.
• Missing is the principle of people-centeredness, which was very central to stakeholders in the Movement Strategy Process. It is not done justice as a sub-aspect of inclusivity.  

MCDC response: The MCDC will re-assess the Movement Strategy Principles to see what can be reused from there.

Neutrality & reliability:

• Neutrality: Access to knowledge of information based only on facts when sharing content. Faced with the dominant ideologies that can be imposed on us by powerful groups that are sometimes not factual and that certain information shared can be Fake news, Wikipedia by its principles and values tries to be neutral and also to fight against false information.
• Reliability: we must insist on reliability and show that the information must first be reliable before putting it online. Highlight the fact that there are administrators who are there to oversee the work of contributors.

MCDC response: “Neutrality and reliability” speaks to the content, but the Charter is about the governance of the Movement. We landed on the “independence” value (rather than “neutrality,” which is left to each project to cover); we also used “fact-based” instead.

Interdependence:

• Consider adding Interdependence as one of our core values. For example, the Wikipedias depends upon Commons for images, and Commons depends upon Wikidata for some kinds of structured data, etc. The projects are stronger together.
• Interdependence also limits our notion of subsidiarity, because there are limits to what a local group can do. A handful of volunteers at a small Wikipedia might be “the most immediate or local level that is appropriate” for making most content decisions, but they do not have the authority to turn “their” Wikipedia into an advertising site.

MCDC response: The Movement Charter is not going to address this in the Values & Principles chapter.

Collaboration:

• I don't know if "team spirit" is a value or if it should be reflected in this chapter, but if it isn't mentioned, it can be overlooked.
• There is a need for collaboration and cooperation to be included as one of the values and principles.

MCDC response: The MCDC will look into the Principle from Movement Strategy (Collaboration & Cooperation).

Sustainability:

• The one word I was looking for was "sustainability" and I see it under "resilience." It's a very interesting word for the Movement, not only in terms of environmental but also for the efforts of the Movement.
• A sustainability section should be added.

MCDC response: The MCDC will  review the existing “resilience” value, and see if we should elaborate on the sustainability component.

Shared learning:

• We believe that shared learning and coexistence should be the core value of the movement as well. Considering that this is an ever-evolving movement with a lot of affiliates and new movement structures being defined it is important to highlight how all these movement entities will coexist.
• I would add self-criticism. I believe that the process of self-criticism is fundamental for other of these values and principles to be achieved.

MCDC response: Some aspects are similar to collaboration & cooperation; others comment can be addressed in accountability or resilience (implicitly “self-criticism”).

Resources:

• I don't think the values section discussed that content should be free in the monetary sense [+3].

MCDC response: The topic of resources is related to free knowledge and open source as well as independence, although it is not explicit there, currently.

Participatory decision-making:

• Inclusivity should not be only a paper action but it should be made real, we should include participatory decision-making not just talk about inclusion only on the paper.
  • MCDC response: The MCDC tried to address this in the Charter via accountability and inclusivity. ‘Equity’ and ‘inclusivity’ will be particularly reviewed in light of the Movement Strategy principles to see how they can be expanded.

Empowerment:

• When you talk about equity there should be empowerment.

MCDC response: This aspect might fall within the wider principle of ‘equity’.

Flexibility:

• There should be flexibility in assigning roles.

MCDC response: This aspect might fall within the wider principle of ‘resilience’.

Efficiency:

• Efficiency was also removed, which strikes us as similarly important as the movement embarks on creating new structures and systems and the charter sets the guardrails for these.

MCDC response: This aspect might fall within the wider principle of ‘resilience’.

Solidarity:

• Add solidarity since it is a community.

MCDC response: This aspect might fall within the wider principle of ‘equity’.

Marginalized groups:

• Will there be a definition of "marginalized groups"?

MCDC response: This aspect might fall within the wider principle of ‘equity’.

Introduction text

“We represent a fact-based, open, and inclusive approach to knowledge.”

Feedback on this passage:

• Rephrase suggestion: “We pursue effective strategies and practices driven by evidence”.
• The "facts" term is a bit shaky. There are no naked facts, what is called "facts" is always in a context.
• What do we put in the fact-based knowledge approach? Please explain in detail.
• At the level of the first sentence, is there a risk for a contributor to approach a subject which is not open to all but of which he is aware? [demonstrating that the concept of “open” may not be intuitive to all, and is worth explaining further].
• It was suggested to change 'We represent a fact-based, open... sentence to We represent a source-based', open.... Keeping in view that we mainly provide a source based approach in our contributions.
• “Fact-based” is a problem: Wikipedia does not contain "facts" or "truth". Wikipedia endeavors to contain an accurate summary of what reliable sources say. We do not, will not, and cannot get bogged down in unconstructive and unending arguments about "facts" or "truth".
• No, we represent a source-based approach to knowledge, and ideally the sources are reliable and have a high probability of reflecting the facts.
• Using the phrase "fact-based" (or "truth-based") doesn't seem helpful, and could be problematic for attempts to ensure that "verifiability" is the threshold, on projects where that's a necessity. (See the old "verifiability, not truth" slogan).
• What’s meant by "representing an open and inclusive approach to knowledge".
• We rely on authorities (vide verifiability), not on facts.
• How can inclusivity be ensured in practice? There are people who delete what seems unimportant to them. Unfortunately, these are then those who are "technically" superior to those who have a certain detailed knowledge.

“Our projects serve knowledge to a global audience, and the platforms that host the projects are driven by independent initiative.”

Feedback on this passage:

• Suggestion to rephrase: “Our projects provide/offer knowledge to people around the world”.
• Questioning if all communities will accept the idea of the projects driven by an independent initiative.
• We propose the reformulation in this way: “Our projects serve the knowledge of a global audience and the platforms that host them are driven by independent initiatives”.
• The word “audience” doesn't really fit here.
• “platforms” in what sense? What does it mean to drive them through independent initiatives.
• The projects might be driven by “independent initiative”, but the platforms are largely centralized. The "platforms" are MediaWiki and Wikibase and the APIs and all of the technological stuff that most movement organizations and volunteers don't think about unless it breaks. I cannot, through independent initiative, rewrite MediaWiki.
  • MCDC response: To be considered for integration by the MCDC, perhaps through elaborating & offering more description.

"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.”

Feedback on this passage:

• In which ways do the Movement Charter Values & Principles differ from the “community values” mentioned above.
  • MCDC response: To be considered by the MCDC in the next draft.

Our values and principles recognize that this approach to make knowledge available is a collaborative endeavor, and aim to keep the focus on [inclusivity, subsidiarity etc.]

Feedback on this passage:

• If your values and principles aim to keep the focus on the seven concepts you listed, then they cannot be the same as those seven concepts (if A keeps the focus on B, then A is not B).

Free Knowledge & Open Source

General:

• I like this writeup a lot but want to add more about FOSS and technology development. We are not just following golden-rule principles, we also incorporate novel software development and maybe other technologies too. Wikimedia should definitely be explicitly committed to open/public technology, honoring and supporting innovative software (developed by us or otherwise), and directly and literally helping the history of technology support private/individual people not just big organizations.
• The word "free" is misunderstood in Japanese as "freedom, open and at no cost".
• Suggested to refer to "free knowledge" as "open knowledge" since it is open for all but the term "free" is relative.
  • MCDC response: To be considered by the MCDC in the next draft.

“We share, in the spirit of free knowledge, all of our content, all our software”.

Feedback on this passage:

• We distribute content on the sites, but we release it under a free license (and provide dumps) so that anyone can distribute it. We create content, but do so on wikis, allowing anyone to edit. When we maintain wikis, we do so as volunteer communities open to participation by all. We host wikis, but on free software, so that anyone can host it as well as we can. At every part of the process, we relinquish control and let anyone continue it as they like. We share it freely. I think it would be good to articulate this kind of thing in the Charter, and make its implications clear.

• It should have been stated first that Wikipedia is for all knowledge, and then to single out the "favorites. Otherwise, it seems that Wikipedia is not for all knowledge.
• The phrase should include priority on stability / reliability on the selection of technology. If the current wording is taken arbitrarily, this would be interpreted as the movement discourages diversification on the use of technology and be rigid on open source.
• When drafting a legal text, the text must be clear and unambiguous: unlike the case with "the spirit of free knowledge”.
  • MCDC response: To be considered by the MCDC in the next draft.
• Isn't this a copyright infringement? If that's the case, I think "I will share openly licensed content and software with the whole world" is more in line with the actual situation. Also, "the spirit of free knowledge" seems to disrespect the authors and researchers.

“using the transformative tool of open licensing”.

Feedback on this passage:

• Be more specific about 'open' (adversaries are trying to co-opt "open"); "open source" is in the subheader, but it's not in the text. We should be committing to use "open source" software only, otherwise it's too narrow to be useful.
• It is not clear what is the “transformative tool” referred to here. A definition is needed.
  • MCDC response: To be considered by the MCDC in the next draft.
• Will it be possible to list software and platforms in open license as far as possible for a better ease of contributors in their task.
• Suggestion to add: the use of open-source software programs and apps are to be considered when foundation or other Wikimedia entity for organizing events, collaboration internally and externally. Also for communications and surveys.

"We commit to making space for the knowledge that has historically been marginalized."

Feedback on this passage:

• “Marginalized community”  or “underrepresented region” is a sketchy word to understand. More clarity on this would be helpful.
• Welcome the widening of focus by specifying this. Agree with the idea but do not agree with the way it is presented as it suggests there is a "we" that has the power to let people in or not, which implies a perhaps paternalistic or controlled scenario. The sentence could be rewritten to reflect a welcoming stance and one that more fully recognizes that "historically marginalized knowledge" is what the Wikis are all about.
• The main idea in this sentence somehow contradicts with the main purpose of developing and setting up an encyclopedia, because we would like to deliver and share knowledge that meets scientific requirements. It looks like the community needs to guess what is the difference between this "historically marginalized" or just "marginalized knowledge" [counter point: I think we need the term historically and marginalized to keep in the charter].
• The spirit about “marginalized” knowledge is welcome. Suggestions to tweak the language so it feels less like an insider group is controlling who is included, excluded, welcomed. E.g. “The Wikis are all about knowledge that has been historically marginalized".
• No one in their right mind would object to a broad reflection of the culture of Africans, the small peoples of Russia, or anyone else. At the same time, it is unacceptable to introduce marginal and anti-scientific views under the sauce of the representation of oppressed cultures [there was also an opposite view: The WMF leadership calls for a struggle against this colonial racist legacy. To see it as promoting "anti-science" views is to side with the racists].
• “Historically marginalized” is not a clear concept to Arabic speakers. Questions about why mentioning "marginalization" here, and why "historically"? When did this “marginalization” start and end, and is our community included in the scope of marginalization.
• Are there any foundation projects that are and/or were marginalized within the Wiki community that we should know about? [potential support].
• We want to talk about it, but we have no sources, finding reliable sources in relation to orality remains a major problem. The lack of source for is the real problem of marginalized content.
• This is highly problematic as it indicates that there is a hidden agenda and targeted and designed content.
• The freedom of a language version of a Wikimedia project to be against Marginalized knowledge within a project is from my point of view important. So I don't want a Wikimedia project to accept marginalized knowledge. It is better to create a new project for marginalized Knowledge instead of integrating it into existing projects like Wikipedia if there is no support within a community.
• The 2030 Strategy item Innovate in Free Knowledge has apparently unanimous opposition. The 2030 Strategy process was so broken and so illegitimate that the individuals running the process rammed this item through every stage, despite absolutely zero visible support and despite repeated opposition during and after every stage of the strategy process. This committee should not be trying to "commit" the community to "make space" for content that the community has considered and explicitly decided to exclude as inappropriate.
• Can you be more specific and at least reassure us that you do not mean oral knowledge (which is not reflected in reliable written sources).
• Keep it simple, and drop "We commit to making space for the knowledge that has historically been marginalized - including within our projects”.
• "Historically marginalized" seems unclear. IDK if we should create a place for flat Earth society or adepts of alternative history.
• This doesn't seem to be accurate: we evaluate 'knowledge that has historically been marginalized' with the same criteria as other knowledge.
• Suggestion to add: “marginalized and/or suppressed”.
• Suggestion: “We commit to making space for all knowledge, including the knowledge that has historically been marginalized”. If you wouldn’t fix this, then the meaning of the phrase is that Wikipedia is not for all knowledge, but only for marginalized ones.

MCDC response to the feedback above: The MCDC will revisit the sentence in the next draft.

Independence

“We strive to operate independently, without any favoritism that would hinder our free knowledge mission.”

Feedback on this passage:

• Why is this not a categorical principle and gives an option that it may be different in the future? Is it for a specific reason? I feel it is the least categorical principle and would like to know why.
• Since the Charter is the constitution of our movement, why use "we strive", which is vague, instead of "we work independently".
• Why use the term “strive”.
• “We strive” is not clear.
• Does "without favoritism" apply also to the Wikimedia movement itself? (Survey).
• The very idea of “free knowledge” is biased.
• Wikimedia does not operate in a political vacuum, nor in a commercial vacuum. I do not see any chance for Wikimedia to develop outside of liberal democracy, pretending that these various authoritarianism regimes are ok and somehow you can cooperate with them for the best.This means a kind of "favoritism" that facilitates the mission of free knowledge.

“We are not driven by commercial, political or other monetary or promotional influences.”

Feedback on this passage:

• Why not also cite religious, ideological and monetary influences.
• Under "independence," should we include independence from the potential pressures of the Wikimedia Foundation, or from other governance structures, like local/national governments.
• Some see supporting a few “minority” groups by changing the official logo of the Foundation to support them, falls within the political and commercial promotion. The Foundation must keep its logo and entity as is, and not promote any minorities.
• Wikimedia is large enough that commercial considerations must be taken into account when developing it. For example: Wikidata has been around for over 10 years. Who benefited from them (commercially) and how? Are you sure we don't want to have any influence on how this happens in the future.
• Given the discussion about fundraising on English Wikipedia recently, this probably needs to link to a page that explains, in very clear and unambiguous words, that being independent means the movement can't be bought by a government, corporation, or individual, and that this requires many millions of dollars every year.

Inclusivity

General:

• Very little here about openness to participation by anyone who doesn't actively disrupt. Even including the word "welcome" somewhere would help.
• For the question of leadership, what is the place of under-represented communities in the various decision-making bodies.
  • MCDC response: To be considered by the MCDC in the next draft.
• Make it possible for communities that do not have access to the internet to contribute more to Wikipedia mem outside of city centers.
• Openness, inclusion, welcoming nature - all of these values should be strongly addressed in this part. Specially, a welcoming and open environment for newcomers should be addressed exclusively. Suggestion: “any entity aligning with the goals and values of the movement can be a part of it can be added to reinforce the openness of the movement”.
• Visually-impaired people should also be cared for by the community.
• Neither the Code of Conduct nor the enforcement guidelines for it have been accepted by the community. That should be dropped from the text here, unless and until the community actually does approve a Code. If the text here requires a Code, and no Code has been approved by the community, that could block or impede this.
• There is a lot of knowledge by and about women that is currently "not encyclopedic", because it cannot be linked to dates and names. The Charter must prescribe an update of the relevance criteria.
• How is it possible to act towards equity or inclusiveness if we are not first able to identify our own problems? Although we have widely known projects, everything behind our work is unknown to the general public. We depend a lot on our capacity for self-criticism because we are lonely specialists in this field.
• Make it clear that employees of affiliates, WMF, and people who do not edit but contribute to Wikimedia are also communities.

We foster a people-centered vision of participatory co-creation.

Feedback on this passage:

• "People-centered": I think this is one of those "true only if vacuous, meaningful only if false" things. Yes, Wikimedia communities are made of people, and not fish or mushrooms. No, our activities are not fundamentally about anything other than the free knowledge efforts. If we're stuck between banning someone for the good of the project, or keeping them because they're a person, the project comes first. If this has been more thoroughly defined elsewhere such that it actually fits, we should probably have a link pointing there.
• I might not be on board with this "people-centered vision of participatory co-creation". Which people? (Readers? Editors? Employees of movement organizations?) Is "participatory co-creation" fully compatible with photos on Commons, which normally have only one creator and no other participants.
• This is mere “word salad”. Imagine explaining the sentence in simple English to a fourteen-year old: how would you rephrase it more simply.

"Our projects are intended to be available in all languages"

Feedback on this passage:

• I'd change this to something more indicating that every person should be able to access the projects in their own language. The difference is a very minor point, but we don't want to guarantee support for dead languages, if easily avoidable.
• Too idealistic. Is it even possible? "Access in all languages" is pure politics. It is impossible to separate linguistic, ethnic and political issues.

"accessible on diverse platforms by universal design and assistive technology"

Feedback on this passage:

• This is getting at something broader, but getting too deep into particulars. The more general point of "include everyone, really" should be made, so that we don't need to potentially quibble about particularities like regional/ideological/neurodivergent diversity.

“Our practices build on and safeguard the diversity and rights of our communities. To do so, we establish and enforce codes of conduct.”

Feedback on this passage:

• That's not about individual rights, but only the collective rights that help "everyone" "feel" appreciated.
• Suggestion to add: “without any distinction between communities" to emphasize the principle of inclusiveness and equality.
• If a community should decide not to accept these codes of conduct, would that decision be fully respected per your very commitment to ‘safeguard the diversity and rights of our communities’.
• I think these two sentences need a complete rewrite. The general point (we need norms that allow for as broad participation as possible) does belong here, but the ordering/connecting in this wording doesn't make sense. I like the wordings used by ENWP's ArbCom, that our goals require "an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect".
• What “Code of Conduct”, and why and how.
• A “Universal Code of Conduct” is automatically incompatible with cultural diversity where different types of interactions exist in different communities that might be considered "taboo" or "aggressive" in others.
• You start the last sentence with "to do so", yet this doesn't say anything that can provide a more accessible website. Technically even the main page is rather poorly built. It has missing or wrong alts. I don't think it conforms to WCAG AA. You should say if you plan to engage specialists and have some goals like WCAG conformity and guidance stated if you state goals in the code of conduct.
• Are our communities the only ones whose rights deserve safeguarding? Maybe this should say "all who participate in the movement" or "everyone who contributes to the goal, regardless of how that contribution is made".
• We should not require codes of conduct at a constitutional level. They don't seem to actually work in practice.

“we [...] ensure that everyone feels valued and equally included.”

Feedback on this passage:

• Only Wikipedians who contribute positively deserve to be and feel valued.
• Not everyone is to be equally valued and included. An extreme example: people wishing to share knowledge of terrorism are not valued or (Survey).

Subsidiarity

Term “subsidiarity”:

• What does “Subsidiarity," mean? "Federalism"? "Local autonomy".
• This section needs to be clarified.
• What does ‘Subsidiarity’ mean? And what kind of ‘authority’ are we talking about here: on the management of the local movement or authority over things? Is this related to the articles.
• The section under "Subsidiarity" is very vague. Could you explain it more.
• Value & Principles should use a term other than subsidiarity to make it understandable.
• Further clarification at Subsidiarity level: which local authority is appropriate? e.g. “In case there is an article that is controversial and the concern of this article puts pressure on the local group to delete this article, who has the right or responsibility for deletion?”. “Self-Management” could also present a concern in the sense that if people (local leaders) took themselves to be “little kings”. At what level or when can the higher authority intervene.
• The word “Subsidiarity” is unusual in my experience. "Subsidiarity" seems to refer 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 "federalism" as a sort of synonym? Or have I misunderstood.
• On the organizational level, there is way too much centralization at the Wikimedia Foundation. The value & principle of subsidiarity might open the door to split the WMF in a dozen pieces, to be spread out over the world, landing in hubs and chapters, which some Wikimedians would very much welcome.

MCDC response: The drafting group will add a definition of the term.

Term “self-management”:

• What is meant by "self-management" and what are its limits.
• The relationship between the foundation and the communities needs more elaboration. It doesn't say if this "self-management" is absolute or unconditional.

MCDC response: The drafting group will add a definition or reconsider the term.

“We entrust authority to the most immediate or local level that is appropriate, on both our platforms and in our organizational governance.”

• Expecting more about the relationship between the Wikimedia Foundation and the affiliated entities.The heart of the matter is missing here: that today the Foundation has a relationship with the caps where we are "grantees" rather than a relationship of equals and with the current wording, responsibility is transferred (i.e. "authority"), but there is no talk about equal decision-making.
  • MCDC response: To be considered by the MCDC in the next draft.
• Suggestion from MS principles: “Our Movement will make decisions at the most immediate or local level wherever possible and will open pathways for more participatory decision-making".
• What does “immediate or local level” mean in this paragraph.
• Which authority is it? This part sounds unfinished and a bit naive.
• It is a double-edged sword. While the draft later states that there are other forms of subsidiarity (besides geographical), we are running the risk of becoming too decentralized.
• We believe that members of the local community are the people who can assess whether some information should be included in articles or not. It's about trusting people at the local level. We want to be inclusive so we don't exclude new projects in the future.
• What would be an example of “most immediate or local level”? how the "deletion policy" is decided per project, per language.
• Which has a higher authority: the community or the Wikimedia Foundation? Are there any circumstances where one's authority trumps the other? E.g. If the Trust and Safety team have the right to interfere with the authority of the communities there is no complete autonomy at the local level.
• What does "organizational governance" refer to.
• The following terms are not clear to many members: "authority", "immediate or local level", and "our organizational governance".
• In ensuring subsidiarity, information dissemination should be done and everyone should have equal rights.
• How is the "most immediate or local level" legitimized? ()
• One particular example is the intrusion of volunteers giving a misinterpretation of copyright/ intellectual property, and data privacy and defamation laws that lead to results like deletion of fair use image files. The movement should encourage subscribing to local law experts as part of the subsidiarity principle in decision making process.
• I expect that "the most immediate or local level that is appropriate" will be misquoted as "the most immediate or local level", without regard to appropriateness. Also, this sentence should probably say "projects", not "platforms".
• We entrust, but in fact we also coordinate some things top-down, an example of which is the Charter. Is it worth distinguishing.
• The community on Wikipedia is not a corporation, so verticalizing community management is a dubious undertaking. There is no multi-layered pyramid of power.
• Entrusting authority to anyone, whether at the local level or otherwise, has never ensured either capable self-management or adherence to any set of values. If you want to ensure capable self-management, you have to provide training (probably more than people want) and to reward good management choices. If you want adherence to a set of values, you have to retain the authority and responsibility to require compliance from unwilling parties, or to kick them out of the movement. Project capture has happened and will happen again. Entrusting authority to the local level will not prevent that, and it may increase the risk.
• The movement does not agree on the bounds of local authority. Part of the community at the English Wikipedia believes that they have all authority and the rest of the movement is either irrelevant (e.g., tiny Wikipedias) or must comply with their demands (e.g., the WMF). We need an agreement that no part of the movement exists solely, or even primarily, to serve English Wikipedia.
• Suggestion to rephrase: We entrust power from the bottom up, as much as possible.

“Thereby, we ensure a capable self-management and autonomy of communities that acts in accordance with the values of the global movement.”

Feedback on this passage:

• Suggested “simpler” rewrite: “This ensures capable self-management and community autonomy that acts in accordance with the values of the global movement”.
• We act in accordance with the values of the global movement and the different communities inside and outside the movement, too. While others think that we need to specify the values of the movement.
• The second sentence would be sharper and clearer if it stated our intent. I recommend changing "Thereby, we ensure" to the simpler "We encourage".
• Suggestion to rephrase: “We are a participatory and collaborative project, so there are no central authorities, but rather an active system in which users acquire responsibilities based on trust and other systems that communities have been developing (surveys, voting and consensus). In this way, we trust decision-making at a more immediate or local level, as appropriate, both in our platforms and in our organizational governance. In this way, we ensure self-management and capable autonomy of communities that act in accordance with the values of the global movement”.

Equity

General:

• There should be more explanation about what “Equity” is.
• Suggestion to further emphasize that the Charter’s backbone is democracy, which is on the trend to becoming uncommon as other governance styles gain popularity.
• Suggested addition: “Identifying a mechanism to ensure the role of communities is effective, especially underrepresented communities, as well as the role of different individuals within the same community”.
• With regard to equity, it is imperative to decentralize awareness and access to knowledge.
• There is a need to involve equity in governance.
• Asking for equality in a system will bring anarchy, rather we should emphasize on Equity.
• This paragraph looks extraneous:
  • "We empower and support communities through pragmatic decentralization and autonomy." → this is covered by Subsidiarity.
  • "Along with equity in the representation of knowledge, we enable equity of resources." → this is too vague.
  • “We also enable equity of digital rights such as privacy to our users and all participants to the widest extent possible." → Privacy could be a core value on its own, and this does not seem to be at the core of Equity.
  • The Equity value should be just dropped, since nobody can agree on what it should mean for us. Inclusivity (and Subsidiarity) already cover equity in a much more tangible way.
• Suggestion to tweak: “We train and support communities through decentralization and autonomy that are convenient for the majority. Along with equity in the representation of knowledge, we encourage equity of resources. We also work for digital rights equality, such as the privacy of our users and all participants to the greatest extent possible, as well as the accessibility of technical resources and platforms”.
• The value of 'equity' could be misused for empowering, and be used to block someone's different opinion.
• Equity isn't a movement principle. Equality is, and that's different.

Practical application:

• The principle is good, but examples are needed of how it can be applied. Others believed that the principle itself needed more clarification to distinguish it from "equality”.
• "Equity" section should include steps to safeguard individual contributors in the movement, such as examining admin highhandedness, uncalled for blocks, disruptive / unproductive behavior, etc.
• The community was also curious to learn how equity will be put into practice, e.g. how equity will be practiced in the process of defining new global structures [like Hubs and GC].

Translatability and scope:

• During the strategy process, we have seen that "equity" is often a hard term to translate into many languages. Even further, this section in the MCDC doesn't explain well what is meant by equity. Maybe along the lines of "Equity is the principle that...".
• A possible statement might be, "Equity is the principle that all stakeholders have a fair say in, and access to, the work of the Wikimedia movement".
• The section about "Equity" barely covers the topic at all. It talks about decentralization and autonomy, covered by the Subsidiarity section already, and Privacy, which could be a core value on its own. I think the Equity value/section should be completely removed.
• The word "equity" should be eliminated completely. Either drop the sentences, or rephrase them to actually say what you mean. Even within the English language it often fails to translate between people. I've encountered too many times people had fringe interpretations, and the word itself actively obstructs discussion or progress.

"We empower and support communities through pragmatic decentralization and autonomy."

Feedback on this passage:

• The word "empower" is difficult to translate.
• What is meant by “Authority” and “decentralization” in the context of the Wikimedia Movement.
• The sentence is not clear and needs explanation. Also, it may need to highlight that the autonomy that WMF currently grants to communities is insufficient.
• What does “pragmatic decentralization and autonomy” mean in terms of equity.
• This wording reframes things so that the "we" isn't the communities.
• What happens with or to those who do not belong to affiliated groups? How does governance apply to them.
• I don't know what is intended with "pragmatic" in "pragmatic decentralization", so I do propose to leave out the word "pragmatic".
• Replace "we empower and support communities" with something like "we work to be a platform that can serve the interests of underrepresented communities through pragmatic decentralization and autonomy".
  • MCDC response: To be considered by the MCDC in the next draft.
• There is a hierarchy in this action, “we empower communities”, where the Wikimedia Movement is the one empowering communities, when in fact this is a two-way process. The communities strengthen the Wikimedia projects with their knowledge and actions - and the projects strengthen the communities through the decentralization necessary for their knowledge and actions to have a voice.
• Imposing a Charter on the local community "through practical decentralization and autonomy" is the exact opposite of decentralization.

“Along with equity in the representation of knowledge, we enable equity of resources.”

Feedback on this passage:

• Please explain this part for better understanding.
• Can you provide some more information on what is meant by this.
• “equity in the representation of knowledge”
  • We should explain directly and clearly what 'equity in the representation of knowledge' is, and avoid using the same word in the titles to do the explanations [i.e. circular logic]. The actual meaning should be expressed.
  • Not sure what this refers to, but I'm concerned that it may be referring to something that is not, in fact, something we do.
  • What exactly is "equity in the representation of knowledge”"? How does that interact with core values, like not writing articles about living people when you can't demonstrate that what you've written is true.
• “equity of resources”
  • How can the "equity of resources" be enabled and what specifies shortage of resources from one community to another.
  • Does the Charter have anything that solves the problems of fundings that arise due to regulatory concerns like FCRA since the draft does say. How does [this particular sentence] solve the puzzle.
  • Curious to find out what is meant by "resources". Does this include volunteer resources and time, for example? Does it indicate an intent to allow local chapters to run their own geo-ip targeted banner donation campaings? Something else.
    • MCDC response: To be expanded upon by the MCDC in the next draft.
  • Equality of access to resources and equality of digital rights is something over which Wikimedia has little influence. I would not write empty, but only nice-sounding slogans in the Charter.
  • Equity of resources isn't going to happen during the next 10 years. More realistically, during the next decade, we might be able to agree on a set of guidelines or metrics for measuring it. Is it equitable to distribute resources by the number of current editors, potential editors, number of readers, or cost of living in a country? Right now, anyone can claim that the distribution is, or isn't, equitable..

"equity of digital rights such as privacy to our users and all participants to the widest extent possible."

Feedback on this passage:

• I wonder to what extent this is possible: for example, in the case of local rights that apply to us on Commons.
• Remove the word "possible" so the statement becomes "to the widest extent" in order to provide a constant incentive to do more.
• Is it correct to state “We ensure” and end in the same sentence “to the extent possible”? I "as far as possible" gives the impression that this fairness can be flouted at times.
• I don't think this really has to do with equity at all. The "digital rights" framing may also be very counterproductive in certain regions.
• Worded in a non-inclusive manner. I would say: “to the widest, reasonable extent”, because “possible“ can mean anything.

Accountability

General:

• What is “accountability” should be explained.
  • MCDC response: To be expanded upon by the MCDC in the next draft.
• The limitations on sharing documentation should be mentioned with specificity.
• This should also apply to the WMF.
• Let's see if the WMF actually meets this principle.
• Too many abstract words.
• Where do the readers come in with this accountability? It is time to make Wikipedia responsive to user feedback not just limited to contributors.
• Suggestion to tweak: “We take responsibility, through transparency mechanisms, for shared editable documentation, whenever possible; as well as the notification and public information of the programs and activities, and the prioritization of the voices that represent the leadership of the community for the functions and responsibilities outlined in our statutes”.

“We hold ourselves accountable through the transparency of shared editable documentation where at all possible”

Feedback on this passage:

• How can transparency be applied? As we are required to apply transparency, this means all documentation must be shown to the communities. In cases where things may affect the safety of individuals, we must give up high transparency, but won’t we be also threatening the community's participatory work in that way.
• Does “documentation” here refer to wikiproject policies.
• I feel like this should lean more towards how we normally do transparency, where all actions are automatically publicly visible by default (as is the case on wikis). We don't typically reach that level in organizations, but it's still a good thing to strive for. Transparently-shared editable documentation is certainly important as well, but I think it's more of an aspect of other broader things.

“and the prioritization of voices representing community leadership for the roles and responsibilities delineated in our charter.”

Feedback on this passage:

• What is meant by this sentence.
• "Prioritizing" "voices" that have "leadership roles" is hardly compatible with the goal of "equity”.
• What do you mean? Try to keep it specific and transparent, without 'prioritization of voices' or similar mumbo jumbo.
• How do you identify the "voices representing community leadership"? (Survey)
• Never understood this word "leadership". A French word would be welcome, because there it doesn't make much sense.
• Why is "community leadership" the only type of leadership being prioritized? I suspect that the "We" in this sentence isn't all of us in the movement, as most of us prioritize voices we already know or agree with. Does this really mean "The WMF will prioritize these voices".

Resilience

General:

• There should be more explanation about what “Resilience” is.
  • MCDC response: To be expanded upon by the MCDC in the next draft.
• Does resilience include growth.
• I wonder if this “resilience” wouldn't sound better as flexibility.
• Resilience should be changed to either innovation or experimentation or to "Perpetual innovation". The usage of "Resilience" was highly flagged by community members consulted during this consultation, as the language is related to corporate mission statements.
• 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. Ways to phrase it: “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”.
• It is not clear what this is about.
• I did agree, but primarily because it's so vague and meaningless that I just can't fault it.
• Wondering what "sustainability" means here: is this about the environment, or about people burning out.

"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."

Feedback on this passage:

• What are the types of the mentioned “evidence”? Being dependent on evidence contradicts the idea of innovation and experimentation.
  • MCDC response: To be considered by the MCDC in the next draft.
• Unless this is clearly indicated to be aspirational, I have to say that this is false as a matter of fact. I'm not even sure this is really a goal.
• Based on what evidence.
• Suggestion to tweak: We pursue effective strategies and practices based on research, documentation, and results.

Roles & Responsibilities feedback

General

Starting point:

• It should be stated more specifically what exactly “roles and responsibilities” are and include at least some of them. That’s very important for people who want to become part of the Movement. We have to state at least some responsibilities explicitly.
• For each chapter, we need a definition and a statement of objectives.
• "Roles & Responsibilities" draft should put the consequences of Roles & Responsibilities itself, if the Wikimedia Movement and their entities are not performing it [apparent meaning: seems to address the “Why” behind the change, and the consequences of keeping things as they are].
• The rules that already exist should be presented to the community so that they can give their opinion. The existing rules must also be modified. It will therefore be necessary to conduct a survey of contributors and users to assess their real needs.
  • MCDC response: Agreement. The Roles & Responsibilities chapter will explain how what is proposed is different from the current state of things.
• I would emphasize the goal of defining roles and responsibilities: why do we want to do it? What documents will ensure the implementation of these roles and responsibilities in practice?
• Sense of dissonance: on the one hand, we emphasize that the movement is free and independent entities, and on the other hand, bureaucracy is being created. Maybe it's better to admit that, although we want to maintain maximum decentralization, certain processes require a formalized framework.
  • MCDC response: Agreement with this tension of creating more processes. It’s among the aspects that the drafting group is considering in the drafting process.

Research into past work:

• We commend the MCDC for not rushing into creating language, but rather taking the time to gather input, evidence base, and study the previous work and research that has been done on this complex chapter:
• The chapter on the Global Council will have to be written after a few major questions have been asked and answered by the communities that the MCDC consults
• Will we create the Global Council as the highest governing body of the movement, or will it be a volunteer advisory body to the WMF BoT? These are two fundamentally different paths, resulting in different decision-making structures and different roles and responsibilities among the actors of the movement.
  • MCDC response: Perhaps both. It’s still being considered.
• The Future of Wikimedia Governance - in which we present the governance models of major INGOs and distill standards and variables, and discuss the implications for our governance deliberations.
• Decentralized Fundraising, Centralized Distribution - in which we present primary research on the resource generation and distribution models of eight large INGOs, summarize standards and variables, and relate it to the big questions around money facing the movement as we develop the charter.

Tangibility:

• The intentions seem okay to me, please, please start writing the proposal of the alternative governance structures and fill in your ideas regarding the new roles and responsibilities, so that we can comment on something tangible.
  • MCDC response: The Roles & Responsibilities drafting group cannot do this on its own, we need the other drafting groups as well. Coming up now, expect to have this ready for a first community review by Wikimania 2023.
• This is less specific than what written in the recommendations, or do you want us to design a whole structure as a suggestion.

Rights of participants:

• Where is the "right to participate" within the Charter draft? A Charter should guarantee individual rights of contributors, as other such documents do: Constitutions, Declaration of Human Rights, etc.

Parallel chapters:

• Roles and responsibilities are interlinked with governance (Global Council) and decision-making - especially about funding - so these chapters will have to be drafted synchronously and in a coordinated manner.
  • MCDC response: Correct. The Roles & Responsibilities drafting group will not work alone, but will collaborate with the Hubs, Global Council, and the Decision-making drafting groups (all part of the MCDC) over the course of our drafting process.

Intentions statement

“low entry barrier to the complexity of our ecosystem”

Feedback on this passage:

• Try to rephrase the last part of this sentence in relation to the language issue.

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

Feedback on this passage:

• Should be in the Preamble section, not here.
• This sentence should probably move to the preamble.
• Why only in English?

“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”.

Feedback on this passage:

• More clarity for this phrase: try to reformulate the nuance of decision-making power. What should be understood by “governance structure”.

”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.”

• No direct feedback captured

“2. This chapter will provide an overview of the Wikimedia Movement and will introduce two new entities: Hubs and the Global Council.”

• See below (more detailed feedback about future movement roles)

”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.“

Feedback on this passage:

• It should add a sentence that implies "with an agreement" if the roles & responsibilities that currently exist are going to be modified, whether in part or whole.
  • MCDC response: This will be clarified in the detailed Ratification Methodology proposal, to be published in March 2023.
• The MCDC is never going to recommend that every role and every responsibility will change. Alternative: “3. The Wikimedia Movement has many existing roles and responsibilities. The MCDC will propose some changes. These changes will support the needs shown in Movement Strategy 2030 and other discussions”.

”4. Our Movement is constantly evolving. The MCDC will consider alternative governance structures and their potential for future applications.“

• The MCDC is never going to recommend that every role and every responsibility will change. Alternative: “4. Our Movement has changed before, and it will change again in the future. The MCDC will talk about other ways to organize the movement”.

”5. The MCDC will propose new roles and responsibilities for the Movement, fill identified gaps and aim for decentralization and subsidiarity.“

• No direct feedback captured

Roles & Responsibilities

Overall roles in the movement:

• Two suggestions regarding the classification of roles:
  • Divide the roles into: the role of volunteers, the role of employees, and in the same way to include everyone in the movement.
  • Divide the roles into: roles of individuals, roles of user groups, and roles of local chapters.
  • MCDC response: Both suggestions are to be considered by the MCDC in the next draft.
• Is there any relationship of subordination between the entities (existing or future envisaged)? If yes, which ones ? Define how and by whom if necessary.
• It’s a seemingly impossible demand here to organize a hierarchical over-structure for communities, affiliates and hubs, them being basically non-hierarchical in culture. I see nothing in this document on how to approach this issue (or if it should be in the "culture and value document"). If no effort is made in this pre-phase to address this issue, this will certainly make the acceptance of the real org proposal to bog down, as all earlier attempts have done. Wikipedia’s way of working is unique in its all non-hierarchical mode of decision-making and resolving conflicts. This has been deemed as impossible but is actually working extremely well and a key reason for the success of Wikipedia.
  • MCDC response: To be considered by the MCDC in the next draft.

Board of Trustees:

• What are the requirements of the US-Law regarding the Board of Trustees. What decisions is the Board of Trustees allowed to delegate by and what decisions are proceeded at the Board of Trustees. It is from my point of view important to know what changes in the governing structures of the Wikimedia Foundation are legally possible.
  • MCDC response: MCDC will work with the Board of Trustees to understand what aspects of their work cannot be delegated or transferred (for instance, because of legal reasons).
• Including the roles of the board, people should know more about the board.

The Wikimedia Foundation:

• WMF is responsible for building up the trust that it alone had spoiled.
• Who will modify the Wikimedia Foundation's roles and responsibilities.
• I have no idea anymore where the WMF actually wants to go and how it wants to go and how it understands itself.
• WMF employees may not discuss or interfere with neutrality in discussions with volunteers, so what space is available for employees to share their opinion in the community (even if they are originally volunteers)? The boundary between volunteering and employment should be explicitly clarified.
• The Preamble doesn't say clearly what is the role of WMF in the Wikimedia Movement. In the 13 years I have been involved in many conflicts between volunteers [communities] 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 reasons we see volunteers criticizing WMF is because the Foundation frequently comes with plans, ideas and projects, and disclose it in the announcement channels, but we rarely see WMF come to the communities and just ask what they can do for the volunteers.
  • 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.

Affiliates:

• The charter must be able to clearly define how one becomes a user group and which entity to turn to.
• The wording of “affiliates”, “non-affiliates” and “alliance partners” should be included.
• How about defining affiliates?
  • MCDC response: To be considered by the MCDC in the next draft.
• I felt disappointed that the function and definition of affiliates, standing committees, such as AffCom, are not mentioned.
• The Movement Charter must have a clear process of recognition / derecognition of affiliates with community & stakeholder consultation. AffCom should have no absolute power on the fate of either an affiliate application or de-recognition.
  • MCDC response: To be considered by the MCDC in the next draft.

Informal organized groups:

• The relation of the Movement Charter to the Informal groups/communities (groups that are not recognised as Wikimedia affiliates or projects) should also be pointed out.
  • MCDC response: To be considered by the MCDC in the next draft. Informal groups are okay for contributions and such, but for governance there are legal consequences, and therefore we need some basic rules. The Charter will not become a limiting document, but will set and clarify the basic responsibilities.
• My group consists of content contributors and organizers of offline activities, but we were rejected by the AffComm as a user group. We still like to continue doing these offline activities, but will the Charter permit us to do so without having us apply again for the status of user group? (Hablon User Group of Wikimedians).
• How does the charter provide for the management and leadership of Wikimedians in places where the user groups and chapters do not exist yet.
  • MCDC response: It may not! The MCDC encourages volunteers to be bold, and not let the absence of rules on the topic stop you from contributing in areas where movement organizations aren’t active.
• Are the non-Affiliate Organized Groups going to be included in the roles and responsibilities chapter? NDEC WERT experienced some systemic faults which led the local movement being monopolized by some of the recognized entities in the movement which goes against the values of the movement itself.
• What is the place of communities that are not yet officially represented as a user group. Why not have only formal groups? Proposal would be to somehow encourage informal groups to become formal.

Movement organizers:

• Most of these works that are done in the online space are well recognized while the work which is being done in the offline space is often ignored. There are no criteria available to weigh the work and the contribution that someone is doing in the offline spaces which are actually keeping the movement sustainable and are also helping the communities expand their horizons.

Underrepresented communities:

• Suppose I am from a cornered group/community. What should I do to ensure that we are not left out from the Roles & Responsibilities chapter.
• What assistance is provided for communities that are not well represented and especially in undeveloped countries.
• Small Communities should be included into the different roles of the Movement to fill gaps and aim for decentralization and subsidiarity as pointed in 5th statement.
• I suggest the movement dedicates some percent to the Africans because there are lots of gaps to fill in Africa.

Communities:

• Some people who participate only through editing the wikis see themselves as the whole movement. We need to set some limits that help people understand that an RFC at the English Wikipedia is not the way to make decisions about organizations or appropriate legal risks. Imagine the English Wikipedia deciding to vote on whether the IP addresses of people living in repressive countries should be available to anyone on the internet.
• Who will be responsible for ensuring community participation in discussions and decision-making?
• Who will be legally responsible for the content on Wiki?
• There needs to be flexibility in accommodating new roles and global exigencies.

Resourcing-related roles:

• This part says nothing about the resources. How can we define only the relationship(s) between the entities, where those entities assume the rights and responsibilities, without defining and discussing the resources.
• The charter should have a chapter regarding the revenue and resource distribution of the movement.
  • MCDC response: Agree. This content is coming up later as part of the Roles & Responsibilities chapter.
• The Movement Charter needs to address paid contributions.
  • MCDC response: Please refer to the Wikimedia Foundation’s Terms of Use, where this is already addressed.

The Global Council:

• Definition
  • The  'Hubs’ and the 'Global Council' may be easy to understand in the Global North, but they are completely new to us.
  • [Counterpoint]: there should not be specific elaborations of Hubs and Global Council. The Chapter should only list all the roles, and the status/rank of each role in the Movement Charter.
  • How do we identify hubs vs. Global Council.
  • Can you give a brief idea on hubs and Global Council.
  • More clarification on the word Hub and global board.
  • It will be good if we have more clarity on Hubs and Global council. MCDC needs to prepare definitions of Global council and Hubs.
  • Many of the participants have no idea about the Global Council and the concept of Hubs ()
  • There is no more explanation about Hub and Global Council.
  • What is the World Council.

MCDC response to definition feedback: To be defined by respective Drafting Groups as parts of other chapters, and will be included in the glossary.

• Composition
  • The Global Council sounds like decentralization, but that's deceptive. It boils down to a super body dependent on random majorities, like FIFA or FIDE. The exact opposite would be necessary: the strengthening of the individual rights against the intervention of whatever authority. This should be the most important content of a charter.
  • It will be nice if all sectors of the Wikimedia movement will be represented equally, with equal voting rights, regardless of the number of speakers of a language, pageviews, contributions, etc. (Hablon User Group of Wikimedians).
• Relationship with existing bodies
  • Will the decisions made by the Council while performing these delegated functions and roles be final and executory? Or will the Board still have the power to veto such decisions? (Hablon User Group of Wikimedians).
  • What will be the role of the World Council with regard to local communities.
• Fundraising
  • Specifics on how the user community can feel part of the fundraising campaigns, how will the Global Council help direct funds to the community? What is the role of the MC in this?

Hubs:

• Definition
  • The  'Hubs’ and the 'Glob]al Council' may be easy to understand in the Global North, but they are completely new to us.
  • [Counterpoint]: there should not be specific elaborations of Hubs and Global Council. The Chapter should only list all the roles, and the status/rank of each role in the Movement Charter.
  • The formation of hubs should be liberal & based on stakeholder involvement. We don't want the definition or formation to be dependent on an outside point of view. Hub's discussion became disorganized in the Berlin Summit, focusing too much on fundraising and governance. What is important is the hub's primordial function, and its connection with communities.
  • Am I alone in that or do others feel they don't understand "hubs" so well.
  • How do we identify hubs vs. Global Council.
  • Can you give a brief idea on hubs and Global Council.
  • What is a hub and what is its role.
  • More clarification on the word Hub and global board.
  • It will be good if we have more clarity on Hubs and Global council. MCDC needs to prepare definitions of Global council and Hubs.
  • Many of the participants have no idea about the Global Council and the concept of Hubs.
  • There is no more explanation about Hub and Global Council.
  • What are we referring to when we talk about a hub? Be very clear on issues of hubs, foundations and others so that everyone can find their interest.
  • Why add it in the charter of the movement if we have not finished giving the structure of the Hubs and the global governance.

MCDC response to definition feedback: To be defined by respective Drafting Groups as parts of other chapters, and will be included in the glossary.

• Relationship with others bodies
  • The Movement Charter should clearly state the difference between a Hub and a Chapter.
  • Wikimedia Hub should include members both from affiliates and non-affiliates. The Hub will be managed by its members either in a consensus-driven manner or other manner that the Hub finds effective and efficient. The Global Council will oversee the Hub.
    • MCDC response: To be considered by the Hubs drafting group, including the concept of “membership” for hubs overall (i.e. will all of them have “members”?).
  • If the hubs are positioned by geographical area, will they work on the basis of the cultural, geographical and political realities of these areas, or will they work on the basis of proposals made by the hierarchy, the board of directors.
    • MCDC response: To be considered by the Hubs drafting group.
• Regional challenges
  • They are concerned that right now none of the pilots is representative of the challenges that this region is facing and if the structure of the hubs is based on the current pilots, it might not be representative of an entire region which will make it difficult for the communities to implement the defined structure.
    • MCDC response: They are still free to start and experiment a hub: Movement Strategy grants are available for research and support. (Don't be afraid to change this in the process, and even if things don't work - they can be very valuable lessons for everyone involved in hub development.)

Consultation-related feedback

Participation barriers:

• Network issues were a hindrance.
• There seems to be some reluctance and skepticism from the community (particularly from Wikipedia in Spanish). It seems to me that these conversations have to take place in community spaces because there is a risk that part of the community does not feel included and rejects the Charter.
• General languages like Yoruba, Hausa and Igbo should be used in translations.
• Time was short
  • One volunteer commented that it would be good if the timeline for the MCDC discourse extended till 31st January 2023.
  • Statements from a few other communities commented on the importance of the Charter and the comparatively-short time for feedback
  • To review these three short chapters would likely take about an hour. If there are more sessions in the future, please consider an additional time. Also, maybe if you can, throw in a few questions that we need to know before the session.
  • The consultation is important, but we need to keep in mind that as it is time-consuming, we should have a balance where we have consultations but do not burn out the volunteers.

Survey:

• About the survey: there is a Hindi language option to fill out the form but unfortunately, the contents are not translated and are still in English.

Sourcing / footnotes:

• Has there been any consideration to try and "show the work" that's been done - e.g. putting up a list of sources considered and notes about what has been drawn from them.

Preparation material:

• The discussions required a lot of background information and a lot of additional review of content which was beyond the three drafts that were up for review. There was a concern that this challenge will be faced by every new editor who’ll ever review the charter. So the feedback was that some sort of supplementary material should be provided for better understanding.

Representative consultants:

• It is an exhaustive process if we try to engage everyone in feedback so the Punjabi community has agreed to create a strategic group that will be involved in all future conversations regarding strategy or the Movement Charter. Some people were nominated by the community and there were some self-nominations as well. All these community members will be the reviewers from the community side and their feedback will be considered community feedback in the future iteration.

Legal advice:

• Considering the charter is a legal document and every legal document is a complex document, it is practically not possible for everyone to be able to review this fairly. We should allow the communities to consult a legal expert or consider having some regional legal experts provide that special feedback.

Role of technical contributors:

• Suggestion: Technical community members also are to be included in MCDC. Since the technology changes day by day, we need to have reflection of technical aspects as well rather than legal policies.

Making pages editable:

• It's a bad sign when the first thing you see on the wiki page about the Wikimedia Movement Charter is a request not to edit a wiki page. Can I please ask the Movement Charter drafting committee to remove that disclaimer, so we can make changes and implement suggestions like we do other forms of policy and content.

Sources