Talk:Movement Charter

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following Wikimedia Foundation staff monitor this page:

In order to notify them, please link their username when posting a message.
This note was updated on 04/2024
This page is for discussions related to Movement Charter.

  Please remember to:

  Discussion navigation:

Wikimedia Foundation perspectives on the Global Council[edit]

Dear All,

I am sharing some inputs shared with the Movement Charter Drafting Committee on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees in January, prior to the Committee’s in-person meeting in Atlanta, USA. At the next Open Conversation with Trustees on March 21 we shall dedicate time to talk more about this process and the Foundation’s hopes for a Movement Charter. Maryana will shortly post an update about highlights from Talking:2024 that will also provide some useful insights into these inputs:

The Board has a few questions about the purpose of the Global Council (GC), the problems it proposes to solve, and the ways its decision-making will be accountable to key stakeholders (the wider movement, our movement financial and volunteer contributors, and the public our projects aim to serve).

It seems we still do not have clear answers to these questions. This is not surprising, given the complexity of the topic. It is even to be expected, given the realities of the way the MCDC has had to work. However, at this point, this lack of clarity is concerning.

We have received questions from the MCDC about what the Wikimedia Foundation considers possible or "off limits" for the GC. It has been difficult to provide answers for several reasons. First, there are few clear, hard boundaries around what is or is not possible unless we start with a shared agreement on what we are trying to accomplish. In addition, the Board cannot consider whether a particular proposal for the GC would be acceptable without considering its full implications, as well as understanding the perspectives of other stakeholders.

As you know, the role of the Board of Trustees includes a “fiduciary duty of care” in leading the Foundation to achieve its purpose. In addition to guidance on the proper use of funds the Foundation has received from Wikimedia donors, we have to make decisions prudently and only after due diligence that informs the Foundation’s obligations to the mission. We cannot commit the Foundation to unclear use of assets or staffing resources. This is why it has been difficult for the Board to state specifically whether we will ratify the Movement Charter or not, especially when it has not been fully fleshed out so that the Board can understand its implications and future risks.

To that end, ahead of our upcoming meetings, we are sharing the Board’s perspective on some of the roles currently held by the Foundation that we believe could be transferred to a GC, as well as some of the changes we do not plan to make.

Areas of responsibility to assign from the Foundation to the GC[edit]

As you heard in the call we hosted in November, the Senior Leadership team has discussed the relationship between the Foundation and different potential models for the GC as part of the preparation for the Foundation’s annual plan. These conversations start from a need to respond to significant changes, threats, and challenges in the environment around the Wikimedia projects—which require long-term planning to ensure our projects continue thriving. The conversations led to finding the areas where there is a potential for greater volunteer leadership in decision-making, specifically in grant-making and technical strategy.

The Board has also recently commissioned an evaluation of the Foundation's affiliates’ strategy to understand better how this process can be changed.

We propose that the Foundation could assign (transfer) the decision-making leadership to the GC in these areas:

1. Decision-making on Fund dissemination. There is an opportunity for the GC to enable greater participation in important aspects of grantmaking activities, currently led by the Foundation, in line with the principle of subsidiarity. These aspects include setting strategies, policies, and standards for grants, determining funding allocations, identifying important metrics, and reviewing program outcomes. This work can build on and learn from the strategy implemented through the Regional Fund Committees, in line with the Movement Strategy 2030 Initiative #27. The Board of Trustees is ultimately responsible for setting the Foundation's overall budget and planning, welcoming advisory input from the GC on the grants portion of the Foundation's budget.

2. Decision-making on Affiliate recognition and strategy. The relationship with affiliates includes models for affiliation, recognition and derecognition. The GC should be able to modify or approve the movement roles and models for affiliation within the Wikimedia movement, including hubs, chapters, thematic organisations, and user groups. It also includes the strategy for supporting organizations as they grow and to expand how they support the Wikimedia mission. Some of these duties currently are performed by the Affiliations Committee, and other responsibilities are less clearly owned. The creation of a GC presents an opportunity to address the movement's needs, building on findings from a recent evaluation of the Foundation's affiliates’ strategy.

The recommendation on Ensuring Equity in Decision-making mentions that movement structures “will be rolled out at a sustainable pace”, and there is some experience in these areas of working with the communities and stakeholders’ input (like the Funds Dissemination Committee work, different Grants committees over the years, and the Affiliations Committee), so this particular transfer of responsibility seems to be quite doable in the near term.

The Board also proposes piloting an advisory role related to product and technology development, which would be a new level for volunteer leadership, but one attracting considerable interest from the communities, in line with Movement Strategy 2030 Initiative #31:

3. Advice on Product & Technology: Product & Technology work is part of the Foundation's core activity, but there is still a benefit in developing a shared technical strategy that creates a closer partnership between staff and volunteers. An advisory council could help provide feedback and advice for the Foundation's Product & Technology department, help to report on progress made by volunteer and staff developers, and share strategic problems and questions that can be incorporated into multi-year plans that are necessary for technical development.

There are different ways the GC could lead in these areas. We invite the MCDC to consider how to create a structure that can efficiently and effectively take on these responsibilities in a manner that improves the affected stakeholders’ experiences across the movement. In our view, the success of these changes will be measured by the GC’s ability to create more effective decisions for the Wikimedia movement that advance the Wikimedia mission as outlined in the 2030 Movement Strategy principles, recommendations, and initiatives.

Changes not under consideration[edit]

In conversations with the MCDC and other volunteers, we have also heard a desire for greater clarity on what changes are not under consideration. At present, the Foundation plans to:

  1. Continue to serve as technical platform operator. A significant amount of the Foundation's current responsibility is connected to the technical and non-technical expectations as the platform operator for Wikipedia. Given the importance of Wikipedia's continuity, that will continue to be at the center of the Foundation's planned activities. This does not exclude other Wikimedia organizations engaging in technical work in addition to or in collaboration with the Foundation (e.g., Wikimedia Deutschland and Wikidata).
  2. Maintain the Foundation’s current legal structure. We want to ensure the Foundation can better focus on the important responsibilities and unique risks within the Wikimedia movement. We are not considering changes to the Foundation's place of incorporation or corporate structure at this time. It might be appropriate to consider changes to the Foundation’s structure after the GC has been established and has stabilized its functions, but we do not plan to do so simultaneously with the launch of the GC.
  3. Continue to serve as brand steward. We believe that stewardship of the Wikimedia brand is also part of the Foundation's core responsibilities, which it must retain. This includes continuing to manage the Wikimedia trademark portfolio and taking the lead in considering how our movement is perceived in the world. Publicity and public perception are considerations that go beyond responding to media requests or issuing press releases. For example, if people are harmed at an event associated with the Wikimedia name, this may impact the Wikimedia brand globally. The Foundation is not legally obligated to provide trust and safety support to many events, but brand stewardship means the Foundation is responsible for monitoring major risks and mitigating them appropriately in coordination with communities.
  4. Retain the current principles for banner fundraising on the Wikimedia Projects. We see banner fundraising as inextricably intertwined with the operations of the website. As the platform operator, there will be legal and policy obligations for fundraising activities that rely on the Foundation's infrastructure. The Foundation will not be able to share donor data in ways that are not consistent with policies or privacy laws. We continue to believe that a future-proof revenue strategy for the Wikimedia movement will require diversifying streams of revenue beyond banners, and that should be where we focus fundraising resources.

Changes to the above points are not necessarily off the table forever, but they are beyond the commitments we can recommend to our colleagues on the Board of Trustees at this time. Major, potentially highly disruptive changes require careful consideration and evaluation before the Board can approve them. It would be imprudent for the Board to commit to transferring core Foundation responsibilities to a nebulous movement entity. However, if the GC is successful and proves to be highly capable of administering its responsibilities, it could open up additional possibilities to share or hand over responsibilities, as mentioned in the Ensure Equity in Decision-making recommendation: “the GC may later develop further capacities and take on more responsibilities over time”.

Once the more fundamental questions about the GC’s scope and function are more fully addressed, a process of evaluation of the GC would need to be defined, based on measures of success, as movement structures’ “function and effectiveness will be continuously evaluated to allow for adequate design, iteration, and consultation”.

We hope that these concrete suggestions from the Board may enable a direct and productive dialogue with the MCDC, enabling us to focus on the responsibilities we can likely be transferring to the GC from the outset.

--NTymkiv (WMF) (talk) 13:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slides of the March 18th European affiliates meeting including gathered feedback on the BoT suggestions
As part of the European affiliates online meeting in March 2024 with 28 participants from 22 different affiliates and communities, we discussed the suggestions and red lines published by the Board of Trustees above. You can find the complete notes on the Etherpad (chapter "
Reflections on the Global Council"), though I'll list the key points here for easier reading (and obviously, the points I highlight here are my personal editing choice):
  • Concerning the Global Council running the grants/funding system for non-WMF entities
    • The Global Council should have more competencies than just administering grants
    • The position or vision of the WMF on the global council could be clearer
    • Statement doesn’t explain how the WMF will be held accountable within the new system
    • The Global council doing grant making would effectively make the communities argue amongst each other, leaving the decision-makers at the WMF out of it.
    • We still have not resources to onboard new affiliates. Once a new one is approved, they are left alone to fend for themselves.
  • Concerning the Global Council running the affiliates system
    • Huge amount of work and bureaucracy of managing an affiliate system is being outsourced to the Global Council and it is unclear who is paying for the resources needed to manage this or who decides how much that is. Looking at AffCom right now a repeat of a massively understaffed system is in no one's interest.
    • Suggestions by the WMF BoT for the Global Council appear like they’re supposed to make the Global Council “busy & weak”
  • Concerning online banner fundraising on Wikimedia projects
    • The "current principles for banner fundraising" do not exist in written form and favor the status quo over any meaningful change within the 2030 strategy
    • The WMF not using this donor data to share information or message by the local affiliates is a huge wasted opportunity; there have apparently been instances where this has been done, but there is no written process or documentation
    • "Looking for funds elsewhere sometimes requires starting capital" (for example borrowing money from the WMF); requires are more thought through approach to enable affiliates to do this
    • Issues with the grant-making system hinder long-term planning
I would expect all of this to be discussed in more detail at the Wikimedia Summit 2024. Kind regards, Philip Kopetzky (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Philip Kopetzky: Thanks to all who worked on that set of comments; many make sense to me. I don't particularly think a GC should handle affiliate recognition or grant administration. I do think that federating grant-administration for a new tranche of funding, including regional microgrants, makes sense (and don't think anyone is trying to make a council 'busy and weak'). I also think helping regional affiliates to develop their own mailing lists and donor lists and competency in fundraising is important to equity, empowerment, experimentation, and sustainability -- all of which could be separated from some of the operational details of "current banner fundraising". –SJ talk  04:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sj: Micro grants is definitely a process that we know works well if the people administering these small funds are close to the people using them (Wikimedia CEE Spring is a good example of that). Concerning fundraising, donor and mailing lists are quite difficult to develop without the main tool we have at our disposal. As long as WMDE and WMCH are still able to do their own fundraising it stands to argue that this model can be replicated, and that the WMF's limited capacity to do banner fundraising also means that there is still a lot of potential, even when at the same time the Wikimedia Foundation is proclaiming internally that this is the current fundraising is the highest amount we'll ever see. It would be a start to have an open conversation about this, it's just not something the Wikimedia Foundation has any interest in doing, hence the red lines set by the Board of Trustees. Philip Kopetzky (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The full draft of the Wikimedia Movement Charter will soon be shared[edit]

Hi there,

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee is happy to announce that the full draft of the Movement Charter will be published on April 2nd, 2024. This will kick off the community engagement period from April 2nd to April 22nd.

The Movement Charter is a proposed document to define roles and responsibilities for all the members and entities of the Wikimedia Movement, including to lay out a new Global Council for movement governance.

Everyone in the Wikimedia Movement is invited to share opinions on the full version of the Charter draft – this is the last chance to offer feedback before the Charter draft is updated for the ratification vote in June 2024.

How to share your feedback?

Read the Committee's latest updates for more information.

On behalf of the MCDC,

RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why, if the draft exists, it isn't being posted for improvement on-wiki. TomDotGov (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @TomDotGov, the new draft will be published Tuesday April 2nd, and we (the MCDC) will be welcoming feedback and proposals for improvement via the talkpages. We just ask for a little bit more of your patience, thanks! Ciell (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"this is the last chance to offer feedback before the Charter draft is updated for the ratification vote" — will there be continuous engagement and response to feedback this round? Will the ratification vote be all-or-nothing? –SJ talk  04:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We anticipate engaging and responding to feedback throughout this round. As to the ratification vote, voters (whether affiliate or contributor) vote either yes or no to ratification; however, all voters have the option to add free-text comments. The comments will be aggregated for anonymity purposes and reported back, although depending on the number and variety of the comments, the results may be published subsequent to the results of the yes/no vote. Risker (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Polska wersja strony nie jest w całości przetłumaczona więc jestem Przeciw Oppose Oppose Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Marek Mazurkiewicz, the translators are working on the translations for the next draft this week. The new draft will be published next Tuesday - April 2nd, and Polish is one of the languages in which the Charter and its glossary is expected to become available in. I hope that helps! Ciell (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tłumacze pracują w tym tygodniu nad tłumaczeniami kolejnego projektu. Nowy projekt zostanie opublikowany w przyszły wtorek - 2 kwietnia, a polski jest jednym z języków, w których Karta i jej glosariusz mają być dostępne. Mam nadzieję, że to pomoże!
@Marek Mazurkiewicz, już jest dostępna wersja polska. --Wargo (talk) 08:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recruiting members for the Charter Election Commission[edit]

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) invites qualified Wikimedians to apply as volunteer members of the Charter Election Commission (CEC). The MCDC will select five (5) individuals for this role. The selected candidates will come from a variety of Wikimedia projects.

The CEC is a temporary commission formed specifically to provide guidance, support and management of the voting process seeking ratification of the Movement Charter. Its work will be complete at the time the vote result is published.

Responsibilities of the Charter Election Commission:

  • Work with the selected MCDC members to finalize rules of the election
  • Formalize process for addition of voters to the SecurePoll voter list
  • Review, improve, and finalize the voting process for affiliates
  • Directly manage the affiliate voting process
  • Oversee the SecurePoll voting process
  • Resolve unplanned or unexpected issues that arise during both the affiliate and SecurePoll voting processes
  • Act as liaisons with WMF staff assigned to the technical aspects of SecurePoll
  • Act as liaisons with scrutineers
  • Announce the result of the affiliate and SecurePoll voting processes

Successful candidates will hold the following qualifications:

  • Must meet at least one of the voter eligibility criteria for the 2024 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election
  • Must be fluent in written and verbal English
  • Must be able to commit up to 5 hours a week between April 15 and July 30, 2024 to this project, including a weekly video call with MCDC liaisons
  • Must be willing to work using Zoom, Google Meet and Google documents
  • Must be willing to sign a confidentiality agreement, as CEC members will have access to some non-public information of persons
  • Candidates who have experience in leadership with respect to SecurePoll election(s) or affiliate selection processes for WMF Board of Trustees seats are preferred
  • Candidates who have experience as members of a Wikimedia movement committee, Affiliations Committee, or similar decision-making body are welcome to apply

Interested Wikimedians are invited to apply for consideration to the MCDC at mcdc {AT} by April 8, 2024, stating their Wikimedia user name, their relevant experience, and identifying the Wikimedia project they consider their main focus of contribution. Successful candidates will be notified by April 12, 2024.

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee is responsible to develop a draft Movement Charter for consideration by the Wikimedia movement. A full draft of the proposed Charter will be published on April 2, 2024 for a final round of community consultations. The final draft of the Charter will be published by the MCDC in June 2024. Voting will start in mid- to late June and results will be announced in late July 2024.

For the Movement Charter Drafting Committee, Risker (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2 April 2024: The full Movement Charter draft awaits your review[edit]

cross-posting from Wikimedia-l

Hi everyone,

It is my pleasure to share with you that the full draft of the Movement Charter has been published on Meta for your review today.

Why should you care?

The Charter is important as it will be an essential document for the implementation of the 2030 strategy recommendations. Participating in the Charter discussions means that you ensure that your voice is heard and your interests are represented in shaping the future of the Movement.

Community Engagement – April 2nd to April 30th

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) cordially invites everyone in the Wikimedia movement to share feedback on the full draft of the Wikimedia Movement Charter.

Let your voice be heard by sharing your feedback in any language on the Movement Charter Talk page, attending the community session on April 4th at 15.00-17.00 UTC, or via email

You can learn more about the Movement Charter, Global Council, and Hubs by watching the videos.

Thank you,

On behalf of the MCDC,


Can we get English transcripts of the videos? It would also help if "the 2030 strategy" was explained or at least linked to. —Ost316 (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: either transcripts of the video, or perhaps a recording of the presentation portion of the Zoom call. Thanks. - Fuzheado (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the note! TimedText captions in English have now been properly added to the Commons videos, also the French captions for the video on Hubs, which was originally in French. We will continue this practice for the future videos we will post on the Charter. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 09:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the information on the Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy - you can find the central landing page on meta here, which has all the information from the Strategic Direction, Recommendations, and beyond. I hope you find it helpful, Ost316! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! —Ost316 (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KVaidla (WMF) Thanks! Can you make me 'an admin of ..' and not 'the moderator of ..' in the subtitles? Ciell (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks for the correction and ping! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Setting up the Global Coucil[edit]

moved from Special:Diff/26531855

A very good document, I only have one question related to this heading. I do not understand the second bullet In the first sitting, the committees shall be appointed by the Global Council Board. what committees? Is ther a sentence missing? User:RamzyM (WMF)Yger (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)=[reply]

@Yger this means, the "first time they get together", so at the first meeting of the elected Global Council Board, they will decide on the subcommittees of the Global Council. See also this supplementary document: Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Global_Council#Procedure_and_Processes. Ciell (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I understand. It could easily be written clearer, liek you write to state the subcommittees of the Global Council instead of the committees Yger (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out, and for the suggestion Yger! Ciell (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Advancement Committee power[edit]

What happens if the Foundation disagrees with or ignores Technology Advancement Committee recommendations? 20:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The GC complains about it. Without a change to the Bylaws by the WMF Board, only the WMF Board has final say about what the WMF does. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the conversations we as committee had, I would say the WMF is absolutely willing to hear and include the opinions of the GC subcommittee in their processes and decisions on Technical Advancement. As the MCDC is looking for proposals for improvement, @AntiCompositeNumber, what changes to the WMF Bylaws would you propose to address this exact point? Or do you mean your comment more in general, on how to solidify decisions from the Global Council? Ciell (talk) 07:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think there should be a process whereby when the Council and Foundation disagree, that the question must be decided by the Board? 23:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that would be when the Independent Dispute Resolution would kick in. We ('we, the MCDC') are aware that it needs more development still (and that's why this document is not part of the Charter) but we do think there needs to be a future function/escalation path/body/whatstherightname to solve disputes at the most highest levels. Ciell (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can the ratification survey please include a separate question to include mandatory dispute resolution by the Board when the Council and Foundation disagree? 01:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global council board terms[edit]

I like the structure of the GCA and GCB. An elegant solution to the various ideas I'd seen the MCDC float. I'm concerned with the GCB having three year terms as that would seem to lessen the idea that it will truly achieve its mission to "be in charge of coordinating and representing the Global Council, and for this, derives its mandates from the GCA decisions." Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Barkeep49, thanks for sharing your concern. As we (MCDC) for this consultation would like to hear proposals for improvement, do you have a suggestion what we could change to address this concern? Ciell (talk) 07:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have the GCB have a shorter term seems like the obvious solution if people agree the ECB term is too long. I'd suggest yearly but even every 18 months would be an improvement so someone would need to get elected twice ECB during their three year GCA term. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Barkeep49, we have been talking about this quite a bit within the MCDC. The reason why we landed on 3 years, it that is basically always takes about a year to be onboarded into a new function: you first will have to do a full year cycle to have a good overview of what lies ahead so you can actually schedule work and anticipate on things farther ahead of you. So that's the second year and in the third your you will already start preparing new elections again. 18 month for a governing body of one of the largest websites and movements on the internet I think will not do justice to the responsibility and the weight of the decisions a GCB member will have to make. Ciell (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I think 3 years means that the GCB will not be accountable to GCA. You're placing the priority on other factors which fair enough, but for me the GCB really deriving their mandate from GCA is what I find important. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I agree that the term to serve on the GCB is directly related with the accountability. The GCB needs to account to the GCA every year by presenting the annual report of the past year, with explanations, at the yearly meeting of the Global Council. Ciell (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"safeguard donor rights, and financial interests of the movement"[edit]


Is there a definition of these two concepts available?

  1. Who will define what is in the financial interests of the movement?
  2. What are the rights of donors? Is this something that already exists or something that will be defined in the future, and if so by who?


John Cummings (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

pdf version?[edit]

I admit to looking very quickly, but I am one of these people who can't read "on screen". Is there a long version in print format (A4 or so) that we can download to read on a different device or print? Thanks! notafish }<';> 09:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

download pdf version Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The language version I'm moving around, certainly not is a 'movement'[edit]

Wordings like 'movement' and 'community' have been used from the beginning, it seems. In the language version I do move around, the Dutch language version, unfortunately nothing can be recognised that resembles a movement or community. A handful of (aging) people is working on articles and some of them do also handle a heavy load of managing and enforcement tasks. Most of them work for more than ten years for Wikipedia, without any payment, without any other 'reward' or nudging scheme. This group is becoming smaller by the year. A few diplomatic and friendly people can simply not disarm the harm done by some negative shouters that are most commonly in a 'figting' or 'defending' mode. Working together towards a common goal is not the main mentality in the Dutch language version group. Newcomers are a rare species. Nothing can be recognised of what is known from true movements, associations and organisations wih a common goal. To make things a bit clearer, other wordings should be chosen for the different groups of people with different fields of interest working for Wikipadia and other WMF owned projects. Choosing the wording 'movement' for a mixture of the WMF, it's paid personel, the corporations the WMF sells services and content to, and all unpaid workers, seems not 'right' in many ways and from many perspectives. And it's not clear how many people see themselves as part of a 'movement'. Happy spring greetings VanArtevelde (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this need not necessarily be a movement. I would prefer a term like coalition, as we often don't agree, and these projects have their problems, but contributions happen to further global knowledge almost all of the time, and that is the goal of these projects.
Icandostuff (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some history here. I started editing Wikipedia in 2004. At that time, we were volunteers working on a volunteer project. As volunteers we were largely motivated by our own intrinsic enthusiasm, and we built community around this shared passion. However, Wikimedia came into lots of money, and around 2009-2010 started hiring consultants to advise them how to grow the organization. It is in this context that the concept of a Wikimedia "movement" emerged. I am quite confident that none of us called this a "movement" until the consultants told us we needed to call ourselves one. And I think it was the emergence of this concept that Wikipedia stopped being fun and started being serious work. We're saving the world! And it is exactly this attitude that has made Wikimedia a joyless community to be in.
I have one striking memory of a time my friends were at one of those movement planning things in Berlin. They were not paid staff, they were volunteers. Yet when they wanted to take a step out and do some leisurely things, they were told no, they needed to go back to work. I am appalled that we would ever treat volunteers this way. But we are no longer volunteers volunteering our time for a project, we are a movement saving the world. Probably helped to make the Wikimedia Foundation a $100 million organization but it has exhausted and burnt out the rest of us. Harej (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the Wikimedia projects are IMO first and foremost a space on the internet, where people can pursue their hobbies, satisfy their curiosity and have fun while doing this. Even if one accepts saving the world or something similar as our main or ultimate goal, putting this goal front and center may actually be somewhat detrimental to reaching it. HHill (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Harej: Just to clear up the etymology, the 'movement' terminology came from Anthere and other community members before we started on that strategy, I used it myself. Our primary consultant for that was the creator of purplewiki, not a corporate suit. And I don't think that language choice has much to do with scale or public success. A coalition or communities instead of a movement could also work, but has similar ambiguities (in some languages one is more coherent than the other; coalitions are sometimes Capitalized and formalized, where as movements are not.)
@HHill: that was an insightful comment of yours; our main individual goals are often scratching an itch, not saving the world. –SJ talk  01:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right to be forgotten[edit]

Sometimes, when individuals upload a picture under their own name on this platform, and that picture is subsequently deleted or undergoes some other alteration, the user may react aggressively or rudely. This can provoke responses from other users, leading to accusations and sometimes even vilification of the original poster. These conversations remain on the website indefinitely and often appear in Google search results, potentially impacting the individual psychologically or professionally, such as during a job search when an employer may come across such conversations. Therefore, users should have the right to request that their names be removed from these conversations while allowing the content of the conversation to remain. 2A02:A03F:8B19:501:B5F7:62B5:7011:21F9 18:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See en:WP:Right to vanish, other wikis may have similar policies. Geardona (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the Wikimedia Foundation's position for your information:

When we receive a Right to Erasure request regarding project content, we first direct the requester to experienced project volunteers, who routinely handle most requests to change content on the projects. Wikimedia projects have guidelines for content about living persons, and the volunteer community can review the guidelines and work with the requester to address their concerns.

When we receive a request relating to a user account, we provide the user information on the community-driven vanishing process. See the account-related requests section below for more detail on these requests.

We believe in a Right to Remember. Everyone should have free access to relevant and neutral information of public concern; delisting and removing such content from the internet harms our collective ability to remember history and understand the world.

SCP-2000 06:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've observed instances where users are unfairly accused of various things, followed by other users using mirror websites to replicate these accusations in attempts to extort money from the accused. This pattern has repeated itself, with anonymous users spreading malicious rumors about individuals and then trying to extort money from them. Unless this platform takes significant steps to safeguard user identities, I believe its future is in jeopardy. The rights to be forgotten, to privacy, and to not be extorted for statements made should be inviolable.2A02:A03F:8B19:501:7842:5EE3:699:42B3 00:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fix grammar mistake but otherwise support[edit]

Overall, I like the idea, structure, and content of the charter.

1.) However, there is a grammar mistake that I see in the table for the Movement Charter/Amendment: Under category 3 it states "Mandatory community consultation, two-thirds (⅔) support for change in in vote following consultation", is this intended to read something like "Mandatory community consultation, two-thirds (⅔) support for change in a vote following consultation"?

2.) Also under category 4 it states "Movement-wide vote, majority support for change", since we are stating things like "two-thirds (2/3) support" in the other sections, perhaps this should read something like "Movement-wide vote, with simple majority of one-half (1/2) support for change"? (Note I'm plainly reading so assuming majority means simple majority, and not something like super-majority).

 ▶ If category 4 is changed to something such as "Movement-wide vote, with simple majority of one-half (1/2) support for change", then the appropriate part of category 5 should also read something like "Proposals must meet criteria to move on to voting. Movement-wide vote, with simple majority of one-half (1/2) support for change".

I might be reading into it too much but I just figured that since we are being exact and this document will be around for a while, we might as well make it precise.
Either way, All the best, Support Support Ian E (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Ian E. In particular, thank you very much for giving an example of a change that would be covered as a Category 1 amendment! Anyone who has ever worked extensively on a document, even one that has been read and reviewed by multiple copy-editors, knows the frustration of having a typographical or grammar error showing up the day after the document is published. You are correct in your proposed change pointed out as #1 in your post above. As to your second point, we had originally written "50% +1" (as 1/2 isn't a majority, as unlikely as it might be that one would ever see that number), but ultimately decided to say "majority". I think most Wikimedians would define "majority" as "more than half", but I could stand to be corrected there. Thank you again for your feedback. Risker (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency as a value[edit]

Howdy. Are there any plans to add transparency to the values section? We are arguably one of the most transparent major websites in the world, with almost all of our decision-making on public display and available for public participation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Values are intrinsic motivators: I see transparency as a tool, more than a value.
Transparency helps us to trust and rely on each other, and therefore is a strong and important mechanism for subsidiarity, self-organization and accountability.
@Pharos, what do you think? Ciell (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transparency can apply to several values, but I think the principal intention was to see it as a adjunct and enabler of Accountability. Pharos (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The transparency value of a source is relative. In my opinion, the rules for applying transparency values ​​are important as a measure of valid sources. Avamauza (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Avamauza Yes, we (the MCDC) absolutely agree transparency is needed in our governance. The MCDC for this has outlined Principles for Decision-Making in this supplementary document Movement Charter/Supplementary Document/Principles of Decision-Making, and transparency is the #1. Ciell (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transparency after the fact, in the form of public explanations of actions, is different from intrinsic process transparency. The latter has been abandoned by this charter drafting process, and by recent WMF and other processes (an increasing number of phabricator bugs reference non-public google docs, for instance). I would say a lot of our movement's and site's success has derived from everything that happens on-wiki being composed of transparent and reversible process steps. I do see that missing in this document, which both implicitly and explicitly reduces overall transparency by creating new groups with private spaces & private documents, with neither tools for transparent collaboration on these issues nor expectation that they would work in public, and declaring their work to have some supreme representative authority.
In a fast-changing movement like ours, exhausting elections every three years provide at best nominal accountability. –SJ talk  02:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Why is 50% needed to ratify, but 66% needed to change this in the future? In other words, what makes this version of the Movement Charter so special that it needs a lower threshold than would be applied to most other changes of similar consequence? AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the question. We selected 50% for ratification following polling during earlier community consultations. It is my understanding that the fact it would require two separate majority votes (both individuals and affiliates) seems to be a mitigating factor in not requiring the larger majority. Certain types of amendments are proposed to require 2/3 support of Global council members only. Does this answer your question, AntiCompositeNumber? Risker (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I, as a member of the community, do not care that affiliates get to vote twice. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They only vote once. Risker (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they mean that members of affiliates get to vote as community members and then again as part of their affiliate membership. I am also uncomfortable with that process - I see no reason why someone should have over double the representation in this process because they host edit-a-thons. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Charter describes both the volunteer side, as the (professional) organizations side. I for one would like to hear the agreement or rejection of the Movement Organizations, considering the roles they play in the movement - even if that means the people that unite in an organization would get an 'extra vote' (this however is the reason why there is a separate voting group proposed). Movement Organizations should have the opportunity to speak up in a vote about a document that outlines their roles and responsibilities. Ciell (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They already have a vote as members of the community. Unless you are suggesting, as our governance structures have for the last over-a-decade, that their work is more important to the movement than those who only contribute online so as to merit at least 2x the voting power of everyone else. Note that I would be fine with a separate vote for affiliates, if those voting through the affiliate process (i.e. board members or anyone with a say in how the affiliate as a whole is voting) are disenfranchised from the community voting component. – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
66% seems appropriate for ratification. Otherwise one would want to be able to make changes under the same conditions, to avoid a common source of policy failure. –SJ talk  02:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing parts[edit]

The draft charter does a good job of describing existing and new proposed governance structures, but it would be nice to see some sort of analysis/options considered/problem statement/etc. before voting on this. In particular, some questions that are not easily answered by reading the charter:

  • What parts of the charter are describing the status quo vs. proposing new governance structures or processes?
  • For the new parts, what policy or governance problem is the proposal trying to solve?
  • What alternative options were considered for the new structures/processes? What are the advantages or disadvantages of the proposed options?
  • How has community input shaped the development and selection of these options?

If possible, it would be nice to have this content developed alongside the charter (rather than included in it) so that the community has something to evaluate when we are voting. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to all that, and I find this to be in roughly descending order of importance for getting some answers. - Jmabel (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ajraddatz, for this constructive feedback to surface more context regarding the content of the Movement Charter. The need for further contextualization has come up in previous community conversations and for this iteration reader's notes (for example see here) and supplementary documentation has been added to the published content. I do understand that it does not provide the full overview, neither an analysis of root causes and reasoning paths. As a supporting staff member to the MCDC also in capacity of information and knowledge management, I will allocate time to surface further information around these topics. As such materials need review and validation from the MCDC itself, it might not unfortunately be available during this conversation round, yet we will do our best to have it for review as soon as possible. If there are any particular areas on which such analysis would be helpful, let us know, so we can prioritize and maybe have the content available earlier. Thank you again for your thoughtful engagement with the Charter content! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - definitely understand that this could be a bit of work, and I think the first two items (highlighting what is changing vs what is staying the same, and the problems being addressed by the proposed changes) would be the most important points. There may even be a way to do this in the charter itself, even just adding a "this section represents a new process, designed to ..." under section headings might help. I imagine this detail will help those with less experience on the governance side of the projects to understand the impacts of the charter. – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Over-representation of affiliates[edit]

I am also concerned with the perennial over-representation of affiliates in the new charter. I note that the charter seems to be very silent on the operation of our wikis (the volunteers section seems to just say that global governance bodies will have as little impact on volunteers as possible), I assume in order to avoid concerns that these new structures will be used to control the communities in some way.

My concern is that the community is being left out of resource allocation decisions. I think edit-a-thons and the various other outreach activities that affiliates do are good, but those are not the only activities that need funding, and the proposed charter lacks space for meaningful inclusion of the community in movement governance. While WMF and movement resources have no doubt been more supportive of on-wiki activities and tools in recent years, the community has very little say in what that support and resource allocation looks like, leaving it entirely up to the good will of the WMF. That's a problem. I was hoping that the Global Council would be a way to take back some community power over the various entrenched spenders of donor money, but it looks like the charter - as drafted - will continue to favour affiliates and leave the communities without meaningful representation. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add, as I was re-reading my comment, that the Global Council does indeed reference community representation. This is something, but without concrete details on how the Global Council will represent communities (how many seats will be allocated to the communities? what would the distribution be? how many for affiliate double-representation? what is the selection method? who is defining what diversity is in this context - are we trying to represent the global population or the global population that edits wikis? etc) it's really hard to understand the extent to which it will be successful at providing a voice for the people who do most of the core volunteer work here. – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ajraddatz,
the MCDC documented the details about Global Council membership in this GC policy proposal. It is not integral to the Charter since we ('we, the Movement') may want to work on this more after ratification of the Charter and specify details, as well change things more often in the first years of the GC than would be necessary for the Charter in general. And we propose to do it this way to not have to go through the whole process of amendments every time we change details for GC (or Hubs, that content has been moved to a supplementairy document for the same reason). I hope that makes sense! Ciell (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I can appreciate the reasoning, and I suppose I might be a little too pessimistic about the state of GC planning when it isn't finalized yet. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajraddatz: I know this has been discussed countless times but again, can you briefly say more about what you are imagining?
Like, what needs to change to support on-site editors in getting access to governance, power, money, staffing, resources, and the rest. WMF is set up as a corporation, and affiliates may be corporations but at least organize to take power as they can. There seems to be agreement that organizations are fit to make demands. Which of these are attractive to you -
  1. Editors get better representation from WMF/affiliates
  2. Editors organize themselves into an affiliate and speak for themselves
  3. Editors organize themselves into something other than an affiliate and speak for themselves
  4. WMF/affiliates transfer power/money to editors without editors forming an organization
  5. Something else?
In the politics of every country and organization, almost no one votes. I am aware of the lack of editor representation but it is a real challenge to advocate for a demographic which does not organize to represent itself. If there are a lot of interested editors who want to be represented, would it not be easiest for them to form an affiliate and request what they like to the extent of the support they have? Bluerasberry (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The big issue is that it would not be time or cost efficient to form an affiliate to do the things that we (in this case, people engaged in anti-abuse / global conduct work, but substitute in basically any on-wiki activities) need. I could get together, form a user group, apply for funding, hire staff, set up all the workings of an organization to develop the MediaWiki tools that we need. But I have a job and a social life and there is already an organization (the WMF) set up to do these things. Except they are accountable to their own management far more than the community, to the extent that even at the top of the volunteer hierarchy, it feels very much like I and the rest of the community are very junior partners in this endeavour. It's true that the WMF has gotten a lot better at providing support to stewards, arbcoms, etc in recent years, but that has been done not as a result of us having any say in things.
That's why the concept of a global council seemed interesting. Finally, a global legislature for the movement that would hopefully have some say over things like strategic planning, maybe even high-level budgeting. Finally an opportunity to take some of the randomness and "who shows up" nature out of global governance on the community side. Except as proposed, we just have the FDC + AffCom merged into one, and the community and the Foundation are only really mentioned in passing as things that exist that won't be impacted by these changes.
And I'll also note that we have tried the affiliate route - Wikimedia Stewards User Group was created by myself and DerHexer in 2019 as a means of getting us a seat at the table, at least in terms of strengthening our voting power in processes like these where members of affiliates can vote as community members and then vote again as members of an affiliate. Except now we are hearing about a desire to reduce the number of user groups, we are seeing similar user groups not being approved, and we are seeing things like the candidate requirements for the 2024 board elections that are prioritizing edit-a-thon type activities, again at the expense of the rest of the important work that happens here.
So yikes, how do I respond directly to your question. We could get around the problem of people wanting a say but not wanting to be engaged in every decision the same way countries do - a legislature/global council. But we need one that is actually designed to give the community say into things other than who gets $200 to rent a venue for a meet and greet. We have a giant organization funded by our work - it would be nice to have some commensurate oversight over their strategic direction. Something more than we are getting through the community (and affiliate, again overrepresented) seats on the board. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: when I raised the question last November in Toronto about how communities (specifically Commons, my own main focus) would be represented, especially those members whose participation is strictly online, I suggested to several people from WMF that perhaps Commons and other wiki-based projects needed each to form an affiliate (or in the case of some of the smaller wikis, for several wiki projects to group together in an affiliate). I got a pretty strong sense from the people I talked to that they felt that was the wrong way to go. I remain very concerned that there is very little clear mechanism here to in any way represent people whose involvement is exclusively (or even very much mainly) online. Which is to say, the bulk of the people who actually create the content that makes anyone give a damn about WMF. - Jmabel (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajraddatz and Jmabel: I agree that the only governance structures are WMF or affiliates. I also recognize that most editors get no representation through either of those.
Jmabel - while I do not think it would be right for one group to represent all of Commons, I do think that a few groups could. Perhaps Commons:Commons Photographers User Group, Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments, and Wiki Loves Butterfly could. I do not think there needs to be universal agreement, because we have this new hub model proposed that groups of groups can form a hub if the participants wish. If some commons groups do not want to join, then any active hubs still would have the standing to demand their share of the resources. I recognize that it takes administrative money to establish all this. I agree that yeah - editors have been neglected - but I do not want that to continue this Movement Charter is the latest promise to change things. If I had my way - investing in the untapped, unheard, editor pool of crowdsourcing is the most wise investment.
@Ajraddatz: The money available is on the scale of a US$billion every 7 years. There is more than $200 at play here. I have my doubts that it is possible to represent unaffiliated community without an organization. There are surveys and focus groups, but in the end, either the WMF or an affiliate designs those and interpret the results, and a process without stakeholder leadership cannot be trustworthy. I want money to editors but it is challenging for me to imagine an easier path for that than editors forming an affiliate, then asking for it. All the donations that come in are for "Wikipedia", which is the user community and not the WMF or affiliates. Users have the overriding social claim to all resources. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: sorry, but no, by no means can Commons:Commons Photographers User Group, Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments and the like represent Commons in the relevant respect. The photographers users group is narrowly about photography, and WLM is more or less the same (with a particular subject matter). Commons Photographers User Group sessions barely mention Commons: they are mostly about photographers geeking out about one or another photographic technique. Commons' issues that involve governance aren't about people uploading and licensing their own photos. While there is always room for improvement, that part works fine and barely needs more of anything from WMF. The issues are about curation (categories/structured data [SDC]), about effectively importing and hosting materials from GLAMs, about Commons' particularly tricky relation with NPOV, about the tradeoffs between Commons as a project in its own right vs. a media repository for other projects, about facilitating a highly multilingual project (Wikidata has comparable issues on those last two fronts). It's about how we can get infrastructure supported for all sorts of issues that are specific to Commons and have been precariously supported almost entirely by unpaid volunteers (online tools for cropping, rotation, etc; online tools for audio and video editing; transcoding and uploading videos that are not in our supported formats; automating, in various degrees, the process of the many edits to other wikis that need to be made when a file is renamed; tools that identify potentially problematic uploads; etc.). WMF keeps building unsolicited spiffy-looking AI-based tools that often turn out to literally create more problems than they solve (e.g. one that led to over a million bad SDC edits in exchange for perhaps 200K good ones) while leaving volunteers scrambling to support the basic tools that Commons needs day-to-day. These issues basically don't affect the Photographers User Group or WLM, and those groups are literally no more likely to have people who are involved with these issues than any other particular affiliate is. - Jmabel (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word "movement" may be problematic[edit]

The charter defines Wikimedia Movement "sociocultural movement". Generally, a movement, by definition, has really, really fuzzy boundaries. It's very hard, by design, to observe, define, enforce or in any way apply a high degree of structure to a movement, especially an org chart. A movement is loosely organized. Using the word "movement" for this initiative (which is brilliant, by the way) is likely to cause a significant amount of misunderstanding over time. — Fdeth (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these thoughts @Fdeth: as in this consultation we (the MCDC) are looking for proposals for improvement, can you maybe help us by suggesting an alternative? Ciell (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A more eleborate definition of the Wikimedia Movement, is in the Charter glossary btw. Ciell (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not an easy question. I'd venture a suggestion to go into a more boring, but clear direction and use "organization", "association" or maybe "alliance" - these terms, unlike "movement" convey organization, boundaries, and permanence. Fdeth (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions @Fdeth. Ciell (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of assembly members realistic?[edit]

The GCA [Global Council Assembly] is composed of at least 100 and at most 150 members. Right now there are the U4C elections and it took a while to get more than 16 eligible candidates. For the MCDC elections I think there have been 72 candidates. Is it realistic to expect a minimum of 100 Assembly members? What if there are not enough candidates? Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 19:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your comment, Der-Wir-Ing. Would you have any suggestions on what you think would be a more reasonable number? Risker (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like people who only complain and don't make proposals on what else to do. Turns out I'm like them. ;) Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 19:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had this concern as well. I think it depends how candidates are sourced, and this is another area where the lack of detail established at this point hurts the proposal. If individual projects/affiliates were given a number of seats to fill through internal mechanisms, complemented by global elections for other types of candidates (geographical representation, DEI, etc), 100 might be at the high end of what makes sense. I honestly think that ~30 would be a more realistic number.
If, as indicated above, the Global Council text is being kept intentionally vague to permit further development in the future, maybe that number range should be removed or expanded on the low end so as to avoid locking ourselves into something unrealistic. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For your information, there will be Wikimedia Summit 2024 in two weeks, with over 100 participants. In my view, the proposed annual meeting of the Global Council Assembly will be the successor to the Wikimedia Summits (and its predecessors). Reason one is that the upcoming summit will be the last one. Reason two is that the summit always more or less had as main theme strategy of the movement, which is going to be the number one responsibility of the proposed GCA. Reason three for having at least 100 members is to have enough diversity in the assembly, and get representation of currently underrepresented groups. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 07:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Charter FAQ[edit]

Hi all,

This morning an updated version of the Charter FAQ was published. Please go ahead and check it out! Ciell (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Equity vs Equality, Fairness, and Justice in the English language[edit]

Equity is a term that has become increasingly ambiguous in English. This ambiguity stems from the gradual bastardization of an existing term, leading to confusion and misinterpretation in its usage. In English, when most people refer to "equity," they intend to convey concepts akin to equality, fairness, or justice. However, the historical and legal roots of equity paint a different picture. In common law countries, true Equity is adjudicated in Courts of Equity, where decisions are based not on statutory law but on principles of fairness and moral righteousness. Additionally, in the realm of finance, equity represents ownership interest in assets, further diverging from the contemporary, colloquial use of the term. I think the

Given this multifaceted background and the potential for misunderstanding, I propose that we replace the word "Equity" with more precise alternatives such as "Equality," "Fairness," or "Justice" throughout this document. These terms more accurately capture the essence of what is often intended when "equity" is used in modern discourse — a call for equal rights, opportunities, and treatment for all individuals. By adopting this change, we can clarify our intentions and communicate more effectively, ensuring that our message is understood in its intended context without the need for extensive explanation or reinterpretation, and avoid misunderstandings that a topic may be taken to a Court of Equity for resolutions.

Some of the Maxims of Equity seem wrong in our context here. For example, Equity Will Not Aid a Volunteer (

Burt Harris (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hello Burt - you are right to identify the word 'equity' is a bit challenging. In English it can mean 'fairness', or the legal concept of equity, or the financial term (value of a company), or also an actors' trade union in the UK. In this context it means the 'fairness' meaning which itself is a bit vague. This has posed challenges at every point of the movement strategy process, particularly as the 'fairness' meaning is not obvious to translate outside of English. In my view it would have been better to use different language in the original strategic direction in 2017. However, over the last 7 years the term 'equity' has become reasonably well-understood by everyone involved in the process. Further, alternatives like 'equality', 'fairness' and 'justice' also pose their own problems of translation and comprehension. Probably changing the language at this point would cause more confusion than it would solve problems. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can the understanding of 'equity' shared by the participants be more formally elaborated at somewhere like the glossary? whym (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"if necessary after an interim vote"[edit]

This phrase is certainly not clear in and of itself. Is there an explanation somewhere of why an interim vote would be required, how it would work, etc.? (Please ping me if replying substantively.) - Jmabel (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any means to remove someone...[edit]

... either from the GCA or the GCB, especially in the event of ill-conduct, abandonment of office, etc.? I see nothing laid out here (I might have missed something, though) and, in particular, nothing about who would participate (GCA/GCB policing own membership? Something from below?). - Jmabel (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please ping me if responding substantively. - Jmabel (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jmabel, this is indeed not described yet. What would you propose to be added for this, and where? Ciell (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of power[edit]

This seems extremely vague as to the degree of power of the GCA and GCB: whether there is anything specifically decided at any particular level. It looks to me like this charter grants no specific powers to the GCA and GCB. Will the GCA have only whatever powers the WMF Board may delegate to it? Will the WMF Board always reserve the right to overrule the GCA even on what has previously been delegated? Similarly, will the GCB have only powers that the GCA delegates, and can the GCA always choose to overrule the GCB? (Feel more than free to change the parameters of the question if you consider this ill-framed, this is based on a quick first read of the full document, only small portions of which I had seen before today. And, again, please ping me if responding substantively.) - Jmabel (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jmabel,
  1. In the previous legal review (the one before the August 2023 consultation), both the external legal team and the one with WMF were of the opinion that there are no legal reasons for the GC to be set up as a legal entity. Working with this in mind, it has been suggested to us by several that the formalization of the tasks assigned can be done in a Memorandum of Understanding between the WMF and Global Council. I am not a legal professional and have to rely on what others advise in these situations: if you see alternative ways to mold this into a good workable setup, I am happy to learn.
  2. The GCB is indeed accountable to the GCA. The GC Board gets the GCA's approval for the strategic and annual plan, and needs renewed agreement if it is necessary to deviate from this, beyond the standing mandates.
Ciell (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Movement charter analysis from CEE[edit]

This analysis from the CEE constituents that was shared in the "Movement Strategy" Telegram group by Philip Kopetzky may be interesting for folks to read. Google slides link - Fuzheado (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing these concerns summarized in the Google slides @Fuzheado, and I am looking forward to reading about suggestions how these can be solved. Ciell (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain you all can figure something out at the Wikimedia Summit next week :-) Philip Kopetzky (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is making these decisions?[edit]

I'm not being snarky, these are sincere questions:

  1. Who decided that it is, or it should be, a "movement"?
  2. When was this decided?
  3. What is the "expiration date" of these decisions ... if something was decided 5 or 10 years ago, are we still going to operate under the belief that this represents the view of current volunteers?
  4. It's 50% ratification based on... a poll during a live community consultation? That can't be right? Surely nobody believes a charter with 50% buy-in actually represents, you know, broadly-accepted principles of the people involved, right? It's gotta be like 75% or at least 66%, before we can claim there is broad agreement, right?

Thanks in advance to anyone who can answer these. Levivich (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • My impression is that the term "movement" has increasingly come into use over the last decade or so, as a term that embraces the WMF, hands-on contributors, the various affiliates and (to a lesser extent) similarly oriented outside organizations and individuals. I don't think there was any one decision to adopt the term. I think the fuzziness around the edges of a "movement" is one of the main reasons the term has come to be favored: it's not something where it is exactly clear who is in or out, and may often included ad hoc alliances that are not necessarily permanent, and individuals or groups whose agendas may or may not coincide in various degrees. - Jmabel (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: I agree with Jmabel. Beyond that, for "who" and "when", see Wikimedia movement, which attributes user:Anthere at Wikimania in 2008.
I confirm... Anthere (talk)
The expected expiration dates are along the lines of the current Movement Strategy, the former Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017, and the prior , which I think have lasted about 8 years each.
For voting, the election will be like Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections or the recent Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter/Voter information. The Wikimedia Foundation elections committee oversees these. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In flux, incomplete, tries to do too many things at once[edit]

In its current form, this draft seems to create more problems than it would address. It expands one of our greatest weaknesses: elaborate exclusive formal bureaucracy. It ignores or suppresses many of our strengths: fast reversible progress, {{sofixit}} and radical participation. It proposes entire new structures and processes by encoding them directly into a charter: a brittle approach. It ignores on-wiki organizations and on-wiki decision making, which is where most of the self-governance of the projects, and thereby the movement, still happens.

— Philosophically, the motivation for a Charter and a global council is in flux in these drafts, diverging somewhat from its strategic origins.

— Narratively, it's not clear how the Charter came to be and what role it would play in the story of our projects. It doesn't cite the documents it builds upon. The main sections are declarative (they declare 'this is how things are'), missing the jubilant heart of our work, its iterative nature, and its impact.

— Rhetorically, it mixes selective statements about the past with assertions about the intended future, without clarifying whose future-intent is captured. It minimizes the role of online wikiprojects in movement organization, focusing on recognized affiliates, already a bottlenecked group.

— Logistically, the draft engages with many complex topics but does not solve any particular problem, perhaps a side effect of the demands of committee-based drafting! It mandates new overhead and creates new problems, with little flexibility. It requires a Council to do multiple hard things at once: onboard 100 people; manage affilates; advise on funds dissemination; compile annual strategy; resolve disputes — each with complex unsolved challenges that have led to past approaches being abandoned.

— Procedurally, proposing such a sea-change document as hard to update, only in "extreme circumstances" by a new body that does not exist yet, is unwise. Given the above, a lengthy ratification process may not be a good use of thousands of hours of community time.

A good charter strengthens consensus and identity. This would not do that. (A 50% consensus document will generally not do that.) It would however tie up 100 active community members in new bureaucracy for years, while adding another consultative layer to the collective Unaccountability Stack™.

So what can we do instead? Let's find an alternative that plays to our strengths.

SJ talk  13:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1. This better presents some of the things that I was trying to get at above, particularly the absence of community in the charter. Some have said that is a good thing, as it prevents the community from being dominated by the new Council/affiliates. But it also leaves the people doing the core work of the movement out of the governance structures again. I think I am open to the idea of a Global Council and the bureaucracy involved with that (I don't see any other way than a legislature-like body to finally have meaningful community oversight of the Foundation and its activities, the board seats are not sufficient). But the proposal as-is seems to have many details that need to be ironed out. – Ajraddatz (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1. The movement strategy and movement charter processes have been very abnormal in that the processes occurred off-wiki, and it's not clear how these help the mission "to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.", which happens on-wiki. It also seems to ossify 2021-2023 thinking, binding the future. In practice, accountability at the foundation comes from the projects control over the foundation's fundraising, not through a pseudo-legislature. TomDotGov (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of many alternatives[edit]

Here's an alternative that plays to our strengths:

  • Begin with an accessible, inspiring charter that everyone can edit. Draft in public. Respond actively to comments.
  • Describe how the current ecosystem works, and how decisions are made, both on-wiki and off, that guide our collective endeavor.
  • Make the initial charter like a style guide: a living document, being continuously refined and contextualized until it feels complete, nuanced, and concise.
  • Emphasize self-governance, mutual aid, openness to experimentation and figuring things out together.
  • Distinguish descriptive sections (how things work now) from normative sections (here are goals we agree to move towards; here are options to explore; here's how you can help make it happen!)
  • Connect each goal to existing needs and processes: illustrate how it improves on current efforts.
  • Introduce the Council model on its own page. Start with the simplest form that could possibly work, have it bootstrap itself.
  • Make revision easy, ratification lightweight. This makes it less risky to try new things and correct missteps. We can differentiate the latest approved charter from the working draft, while letting everyone get to work on shared goals.
  • Only if it makes sense to at some point have a hard-to-change version of the charter, does it need a comparably elaborate ratification process.

SJ talk  14:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Example goals
Example goals
A prerequisite for an effective charter is determining its goals. Goals should be illustrated by recent examples that highlight the need for the goal, the scale of work involved in each, how they are currently handled, and how new proposals would interact with current efforts.
  • "consistent ways to make certain global community decisions" – (improving on RfCs, complementing committees, replacing one-off working groups)
  • "a more efficient option for discussions and decision-making that involves representatives from a cross-section of communities in decisions" – (improving on RfCs; a potential global assembly, embassy network, or Very Large Council)
  • "simple, comprehensive community guidance of fundraising and funds dissemination" – (complementing regional community-led grants committees, improving on individual liaising b/t affiliates and WMF)
  • "an overview of movement priorities, responsive to a changing environment, that unite the strategic work of wikiprojects, the WMF, and affiliates" – (improving on low-volume talk page feedback on scattered Annual Plans, Strategic Plans, and roadmaps or wishlists of different groups)
  • "more streamlined, effective community input into technical changes and deployments" – (improving on scattered village pump discussions)
  • "effective resolution of global conflicts without WMF action" – (improving on RfCs and extremely rare steward action)

&c. [Feel free to add more. Parts of the current draft seem arbitrary, without a motivating goal. Some goals do not need a Council to realize them, and have had past attempts to solve them with stand-alone groups or processes that did not last. In those cases, we should specify how a Council or other umbrella could help. But even with Council facilitation or oversight, the bulk of the work could be done by a much broader and more flexible groups of participants than 'sporadically elected Council members'.] –SJ talk  15:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes[edit]

Let's start with the end: the brittle ratification process and proposal to make the result unchangeable make this risky to consider. Here is a proposed new section focusing on the heart of new global decision-making, which is where all of the new obligations + investment + complications come in. Then a much simpler and more wiki approach to amendment and iterative approval. –SJ talk  15:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. Making global decisions

As a movement we regularly need to make global decisions, about prioritization, resource allocation, collective planning, dispute resolution, and more.

To this end we are standing up a movement council, whose initial goal will be identifying gaps in current global decision-making, areas that would benefit from more community input or oversight, and areas that would benefit from consolidation and streamlining of scattered processes. Secondary goals include

  1. ...
  2. ...
  3. ...
5. Amendment

"This Charter is a living document, designed to summarize the consensus around these topics that develops as we harmonize decision-making across different parts of the movement. It will be open for public editing [on Meta] for at least the next year, while details of a potential Global Council and other approaches to address the goals highlighted in [section 4] are developed.

6. Ratification

"Drafts of the Charter will regularly [every 3 months?] be put up for a public RfC, section by section. Section-versions that have received support of at least [50%] will be considered provisionally supported by the community, and built upon in future work. Other significant documents, such as founding documents of a Council or Assembly, will go through the same process. A complete set of Charter + Council documents will have a more formal ratification process, once their components have been provisionally approved and the rate of changes has slowed, before more than [$] or [person-hours] are invested in implementing the results." –SJ talk  15:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Sj. I'm trying to wrap my head around how an ever-changing charter would have value in long-range planning of movement organizations/bodies. You've proposed creating opportunities for major change four times a year; how does this impact all the points you have identified for global decisions on "prioritization, resource allocation, collective planning" and other points? The impression I got from the movement strategy recommendation that motivates the creation of the charter is that one of the principal objectives is the creation of a document that is intended to be a reliable guide for those points for multiple years. Indeed, I thought we were being a bit "edgy" by creating such a large number of opportunities for amendment.

More importantly, thank you for proposing alternatives, as it does give people an opportunity to see what other things could be done. Risker (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Risker, there is value in a less fluid Charter, hence 'a future more formal ratification process, once the rate of changes has slowed'. The current charter draft is still changing significantly, and seems likely to continue to change for some time. It deserves more continuous iteration until then. Among other things, it is not starting from a commonly-accepted outline, where the decisions are around how to word our version of a known document-type. As a result, the changes currently under discussion include those at a very high level: what it is for, who it is for, what other options were considered for each part that was included. These are all reasons not to lock down a version.
I see prioritization, resourcing, and planning as multi-party conversations with fast feedback loops: not as waterfall decision processes. Especially for our movement. In my experience those processes benefit from flexible and responsive frameworks, and become less efficient and more contentious when forced to align with a framework that feels arbitrary or incomplete to participants. Warmly, –SJ talk  17:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Movement charter and the future role of hubs in funds distribution[edit]

Hi! As a bit of a forward looking process to think about what the role of hubs might be in a funds distribution process (should they act as mini-WMF grant-making bodies or rather be on the other side of it, supporting the communities and affiliates?), the CEE Hub has written an initial document that talks about it's perspective on the matter: Wikimedia CEE Hub/Funds Distribution Vision. Hope that also helps a bit with the conversations at the Wikimedia Summit 2024 next week. Best, Philip Kopetzky (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chris K[edit]

Hello! Firstly a big thank you to the MCDC - this draft is clear and crisp, and shows a huge amount of thought has gone into this - this has not been an easy task so thank you for getting this far! Also thanks to the MCDC supporting staff and volunteer advisors.

The Introduction and Volunteers sections seem quite straightforward to me. In particular I think the statement of values in the Introduction section is very good. (I would suggest that 'care responsibility' should link to the Supplementary Document not the definition).

I have a number of substantive comments on the Wikimedia Movement Bodies section:

  1. Alongside the mention of the Care Responsibility, I would also mention that Wikimedia movements have a responsibility for the stewardship of the resources they hold on the Movement's behalf - e.g. protecting the reputation and image of the Wikimedia movement and effective management of financial resources
  2. The Wikimedia Movement Organizations section is descriptive of the status quo. The Future Affiliate Landscape supplementary doc is more thoughtful and forward-looking. Would it be better to remove the section starting "There are four different types of Wikimedia Movement Organizations:" from the Charter text and instead say something like "The Global Council will define the types of Wikimedia Movement Organizations", with the current descriptive text moved to a footnote as that will obviously be the starting point.
  3. Under Responsibilities of Wikimedia Movement Organizations could I suggest making it clear the list is non-exhaustive.
  4. Responsibilities of Wikimedia Movement Organizations also lists 'revenue generation'. However the overall structure for / responsibilities for revenue generation is not fleshed out anywhere. Could the MCDC consider this? Perhaps as a supplementary document?
  5. Regarding 'Global Council: Administration of Wikimedia Movement Organizations and Communities':
    1. is the GC expected only to administer these organizations/communities, or to actively promote their growth?
    2. "A committee... is responsible for ...recognition..." - is it definitely the case that this will be one committee, acting with a global remit? Or is there the opportunity to consider a different model in future, e.g. regional committees or hubs playing a role in recognition to a common framework of standards? If the latter then perhaps the text should be less specific.
  6. GC: It reads at present that the GC simply takes an allocated budget for the WMF and then allocates it. I would prefer the Charter to say that the GC reccommends what the grantmaking budget should be. Or at least discusses this with the WMF. (I assume the Charter is mainly meant to be read non-exhaustively, and that bodies - including the GC - are not prevented from doing things that are not explicitly set out. If that is the case then arguably this comment is redundant. But I may be wrong in my interpretation, and the charter text should probably indicate where its text is and is not meant to be exhaustive)
  7. GCA: It would be helpful to understand the rationale for the size of the GCA that is being proposed
  8. GCA: Who is to develop the selection/election structure / method for the initial GCA?
  9. On the whole regarding all kinds of movement bodies, I think it would be helpful to spell out who each kind of body is accountable to.

Also I feel it would be useful to have the Principles of Decision-Making supplementary document part of the Charter itself, as this also sets out the expectations on decision makers. If the MCDC would prefer not to do this, it would be helpful to know why not. I would also suggest renaming the point on 'Fairness' in this document to 'Integrity'.

Regards and thanks, Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


私は下書きをGoogle 翻訳で読みました。そのため、きちんと理解できいるか自信がありません。私は日本人です。アメリカやヨーロッパの人たちとはおそらく考え方が違います。また、日本語とインドヨーロッパ語の言語の違いは非常に大きいです。(私たちの言語では、語順が英語と逆です)


価値観という言葉が使われています。これは、下の見出しの内容に含まれる範囲を意味しているのでしょうか? そうであれば、私は以下の文章をつけ加えるように提案します。「価値観の範囲は以下の記述です」 そうでなければ、価値観が「あらゆるものごとに対する価値観」のように読めます。私はこの文章で、「ファシズム」や「1984年」を連想しました。

Free Knowledge について

Wikimedia運動の大きな目標であり、私も基本的に賛成しています。しかしながら、著作権によって保護されるべきコンテンツは確かに存在するでしょう。研究者については、彼らにとっては引用されること自体が名誉であるのかもしれません。私は研究者がどう考えるかわかりません。 この運動は、存命中の芸術家や写真家が時間と労力を注ぎ込んで制作したものに対してもFreeであることを要求しているように読めてしまいます。一言、「私たちは同時に著作権を大切にします」といった文章を加えるべきではないか、と考えます。 Kizhiya (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(loose translation into English. [sj]) I read the draft using Google Translate, so I'm not confident I fully understood it. I am Japanese, and our way of thinking might be different from that of people in America or Europe. Additionally, there are significant differences between the Japanese language and Indo-European languages (in our language, the word order is the reverse of English).
Regarding "Values": The term "values" is used here. Does this mean it encompasses the scope of the content under the following heading? If so, I would suggest adding the following sentence: "The scope of values is described below." Otherwise, the term values could be interpreted as "values concerning everything," which made me think of "fascism" or "1984."
Regarding "Free Knowledge": This is a major goal of the Wikimedia movement, which I generally support. However, there surely must be content that should be protected by copyright. For researchers, being cited might indeed be an honor, but I am not sure how researchers themselves think about this. This movement seems to demand that content created by living artists and photographers, who have put time and effort into their work, should also be free. Perhaps we should add a statement like, "We also respect copyright."
公式日本語訳(75%完成)Movement Charter/ja Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 17:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
また、deeplは通常、グーグル翻訳よりもはるかに優れています。 Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 17:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
追記 日本語と英語の場合、DeepLはあまり良くありませんでした。DeepLは、英語を自然に聞こえるような日本語に訳してくれます。しかし、それは、訳せない文章を省略していました。
Thank you for the info. However, that page is not the Charter itself.
PS: For Japanese and English, DeepL wasn't very good. DeepL translated English into natural-sounding Japanese. But it omitted sentences it couldn't translate.
I appreciate your kindness. Kizhiya (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Would we need a charter? WikiMedia appears to clearly states its goals without one. I can see how it'd be comprehensive, but Wiki isn't one thing; it's a world where we can all liberate ourselves of the monism of modern society, ideologies such as anarchism being buried if it weren't for WikiMedia providing them a platform to share the truth.

I'm just saying, we ought to consider being a "big tent" movement. ManOfDirt (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The UCoC, I fear, will overstep its authority. Each wiki should be left to itself, unless there are legal reasons for office/wmf action. JayCubby (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ManOfDirt: Hello, you may read the FAQ to know what is the Movement Charter and why we need the Charter. Thanks. SCP-2000 02:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about consensus[edit]

I agree with what has been said above that this charter should require at least 66% support. We can't have a document representing the entire community that is opposed by half of that community. Personally, I would prefer 75% support being required, but I would be fine with 66% as a minimum. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Small copy-edit[edit]

@SCP-2000: It was a pretty self-explanatory edit. Typically, you end a list with the entry that describes the other things that are not individually listed. I figured it would not be a controversial change, especially since it doesn't even change any of the words. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR: Hello, thanks for your contribution and ping. I agree that it is a small copy-edit and it would not be a controversial change. However, IMO the draft should be kept as stable as possible for review and proposed changes should be raised on the talkpage first. Anyway, I am okey if MCDC members agree wiith your change. Thanks. SCP-2000 02:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mecece yanar gizo[edit]

agaskiya wannan tambayace wacce take tayawo atakanin mutane. Saifullahi gambo (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]