Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Create Cultural Change for Inclusive Communities

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.

Open, facilitated community conversations have finished. You are welcome to continue commenting and discussing, but the discussions will not be as closely facilitated and documented.

Thank you to everyone who shared their input. To learn about what’s next, visit our FAQ page.

Why was the feedback not accepted?[edit]

Could I ask why the feedback which overwhelmingly was a) against it as a concept and b) said that it was impossible to determine whether it should be adopted with a rough sample CoC (one that was designed for all projects, not the in-person/wiki system one). For any editor to support this idea they have to take a massive leap into the unknown as if they support it, they have no idea whether a future code of conduct will be written that's acceptable.

Unless and until an acceptable draft is provided which can be amended, including the Community's ability to directly enforce action on the WMF and its employees if we interpret the WMF's behaviour to be falling below requirements, it is simply impossible to support.

I would like the WG group members to answer the following questions: 1) why was the feedback from both sets of on-wiki consultation not accepted? 2) Why was it allowed to progress to this stage when there were a number of pending questions that needed answering by WG members? 3) When will a draft CoC be provided, and how far in advance of consultation close will that be? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I cannot speak for WG members, but from what I see, your comment is mainly about the CoC (i.e. not the rest of the recommendation, which was not there before but combines different parts of previous WG recommendations). "Feedback" can be a generic word in the sense that it originates from hundreds of individuals across many communities, and it seldom points in one direction. Some sources of feedback (e.g. a community survey) repeatedly asked for a CoC. This feedback may or may not have outlined in detail what this document should contain, but it has been a recurring ask in at least some communities. Additionally, there's a community input 'appendix' attached to each recommendation that you may find helpful; it cites in detail some of the feedback that supported the CoC, as well as the other outcomes mentioned. As for your third question, there's already an ongoing proposal for a Universal Code of Conduct that is separate from this Strategy process and is being led by the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm honestly not sure if the timeline and details of that process are yet disclosed, as the T&S Team should be able to answer that --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC).
Since you believe these objections are primarily about the CoC, let me voice my concerns about its effects in other areas. No one will argue that the average volunteer -- white, male, college-educated, middle to upper-middle class, mostly from North America or Western Europe -- is representative of the wider world. The problem is the assumption this can be fixed -- maybe with a CoC. While this might be part of the solution, there is no sign that any serious investigation into why this unrepresentative group predominates. Is it an outcome of the wider culture we live in? is this group the only one that has the leisure &/or desire to create this? "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work" -- what is the theory that predicts it doesn't work? And if the theory is wrong, why has it not been replaced with one that predicts Wikipedia -- & related projects -- works? I can't help but think both the Foundation & the WG preferred to remain ignorant of these other causes in order to push their own agendas. If a theory that explains this phenomena was formulated, then it would enforce on Foundation staff a means to measure job performance, & perhaps reveal some existing jobs were not only unnecessary but that some were even harmful to creating open & free knowledge. -- Llywrch (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Abbad (WMF), that proposal just illustrates the problems. For example, Civil language i.e. bad language is unacceptable on the projects. Uh, first off, no; people can swear if they want to. Secondly, who decides what's "bad language"? Is "bloody" bad language? How about "crap"? "Hell"? "Damn"? We don't need the language police, thanks very much; a bit of salty language on the Internet is to be expected. It is exactly that type of thing that led to the overwhelming "No" to this proposal when it was originally put forth, and seeing that just convinces me that it's a bad idea. Seraphimblade (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I think it's interesting that discussions about code of conduct always seem to devolve into: what language can I use? How about we deal with that on a case by case basis. Every situation isn't the same and absolutes about language are just derailing the discussion. A code of conduct is an important aspect in making sure that EVERYONE has a voice. Without a code of conduct, only the most aggressive people want to stay involved with a project--especially online projects. You turn away those who are shy or not interested in having to aggressively defend everything they do. For many people, it's exhausting to constantly have to aggressively defend something: they just may want to build an encyclopedia. Many of us want a code of conduct: we just aren't the loudest in the room. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The "community survey" linked to by Abbad shows a maximum of 27% (20/75) of respondents who "referred indirectly or directly to an enforced code of conduct" in response to "How can underrepresented groups share their knowledge without being drowned out by mainstream bias – both direct and systemic – or being made to feel excluded or disrespected?" The "community input" appendix linked to contains a link to a gathering of 8 people in Hong Kong who spent US$420 on discussing this and some other matters. It also has feedback from 16 people in Nigeria (US$1,000): "it[']s important to have code of conduct in Nigeria that will differ from other countries". In another document linked to (May Community Conversations Monthly Report), the Ghana section has "mention of organizations getting the opportunity to have their own tailor made codes and conducts" and one of the Hindi sections has "There should be a universal code of conduct, not inclined towards Americanized version of conduct", reflecting the mix of attitudes towards a universal CoC in that group. The feedback on the Wikimedia pages referred to by Nosebagbear was indeed negative about the proposal. I share the concern that this proposal is being forced through despite limited support and considerable opposition. EddieHugh (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I beg to differ that there was any kind of "considerable" opposition, at least, not at a "majority", let alone a "consensus" level. I believe that feedback has come from many sources, not all just WP !polls. Some people are unwilling to wade into certain areas where they know they will be outed, called out, or even attacked, so they remain quiet or communicate through indirect channels. A loud 20% (or whatever) might sound "considerable," but they are just noisy. The WMF world is not unlike the broader real world; I'm sure the en:Universal Declaration of Human Rights had people questioning if it fit their culture or unique norms, too. But some opposition probably came from small but noisy factions who benefitted from a previous status quo of oppressive conduct and used superfically-logical euphemisms to justify their positions. In short, the issue of a Code of Conduct is looking beyond what encourages people or discourages people (which is to some extent up for debate within various cultures and wikis), versus what intimidates or scares people from participation entirely (which should be Universal). Montanabw (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the allusion that at least some of those opposing are doing so from a current basis of being oppressive and use of "superficially-logical euphemisms". As a primary note, change would require a consensus, not preventing it, though I believe that a majority do have that. Certainly, for participation in alternate routes to be legitimate in terms of assessing weight it needs to be identifiable how many held viewpoints in favour of a UCOC (in the form that the recommendation poses it), and that before uploading the summaries mentioned a check was done so that duplicate participation could be noted. I absolutely have not seen anything to indicate that only 20% are in opposition (whether that be generally, or the smaller number in opposition to a UCOC without a draft provided). More specifically to what a UCOC includes, there isn't anything involved that indicates scope would be strictly enforced to preventing the intimidation or fear of potential (or current and former) members. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, the UN's Declaration of Human Rights is aspirational. The UN is not a governing body; they can't make anyone follow that. Given that, I think it's entirely okay for them to make lofty, aspirational stuff like that. If they actually had an impact where the rubber hits the road, however, you'd need a lot more detail and nuance, and a lot less aspiration. If the WMF wants to make an advisory document that they will not actually enforce, then hey, they can put forth whatever thoughts they want. But when they're saying stuff like that communities cannot "fall below" it (in practice, can't reject it in whole or in part), they are proposing to make binding rules. That's very different from the UN's "This is the way we think things should be". Seraphimblade (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

New Voices Synthesis report[edit]

This is referenced, without a link. What is it? -- (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi , the New Voices Synthesis report can be found here. THasan (WMF) (talk)
I fixed the links in the references. Thanks for pointing it out --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC).
Thanks. It seems an especially wide-ranging document to link to in order to underpin "equitable opportunities for participation concerning diversity and inclusion efforts for existing and future communities". It does not appear to explain what "equitable opportunities" might be, it does not help to define "diversity" in this context, and it uses the word "community" in at least five different ways. I don't see how you take the paragraph where this is used and sensibly ask someone to go and create an "evaluation process" as what is to be evaluated is not explained in any terms that can be evaluated. -- (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


The idea of a Movement Charter as such is not bad. However, what is hinted at is not something like a Charter or Constitution. The most important part of such a Charter is always the rights (human rights and citizen rights). I cannot see a single sentence about editors' individual and collective rights against the Wikimedia organizations, which would be by far the most important part of a Charter, besides rights against states, other individuals and possibly communities. Rather, the idea seems to be a en:Creed which is the last thing we need. This is not a religious movement (or is it? sometimes I doubt it). And from this creed, a kind of penal law (CoC etc.) seems to be derived that, sadly, ignores all the achievements of civil rights movements in law. A Movement Charter should focus on digital citizenship rather than confessions of "values and principles" that are used to enforce measures upon communities and individuals. I left the Church long ago and I have no intention to belong to a "movement" that adopts its tools and structures.Mautpreller (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the value in this is what you mentioned at first, that the idea of a Charter is useful. For the Recommendations, the focus was on this being a need, without getting too detailed about what exactly could or should be in it as that will be more for the Implementation Team (whatever that looks like, as it has not yet started) to focus on. However, your suggestions about what can be included within it is helpful, Mautpreller. --- FULBERT (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I am not at all sure. "We must create a Movement Charter that lays out the shared values and principles of the Movement ..." Where are the contributors' rights? Not a single word about that. Following the link from [Footnote 11]: Again, not a single word about rights. I suspect that this Charter is intended to specify only duties for contributors, not rights. But that is the most important part of it! It is vital that this Charter limits the freedom of organizations to trespass upon individuals' rights! Why not? Has no one thought about that? Mautpreller (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Other charters: en:Magna Charta, en:Universal Declaration of Human Rights, en:United Nations Charter, Charter of Fundamental Digital Rights of the European Union. They all have in common that they first of all define rights, especially defence rights against states and organizations. Another point: Defence rights have a greater liability for organizations because you can invoke them if necessary against the organization. Lofty statements are cheap to have but rights can be invoked, especially if the organization commits to them. Mautpreller (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The Charter should not contain the idea of knowledge as a service (as in Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Sprint/Roles & Responsibilities/4&5 since this is exactly the wrong direction. We should not try to fulfill the service needs of any persons but convey reliable knowledge. There are "needs" we should frustrate rather than satisfy, e.g. all the needs that simply focus on confirming foregone prejudices. Knowledge acquisition is a process that requires effort from both contributors and receivers and we should not reduce it to satisfying anyone's service needs. If you acquire knowledge you will soon see that you have to adapt your expectations because things are less simple than you thought in the first place.Mautpreller (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Including specific named groups to explain "inclusive"[edit]

In the non-discrimination policy, the WMF calls out a handly list of protected characteristics for its own employees. It seems weird that nothing like this was referenced or used in this recommendation to explain the intent of being "inclusive". Such a simple list ensures that project policies like harassment or any that relate to inclusivity or access should never exclude groups that are defined by gender expression, sexual orientation, medical condition and so on. Without any specific criteria being agreed, even if borrowed from another organization or legislation, pragmatic measurement becomes impossible or itself will suffer from the bias of those that might later design a metric.

I was encouraged to add a comment after discussion today within the LGBT+ user group as LGBT+ groups are not visibly part of these recommendations. -- (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi , the glossary does include the term inclusion. Perhaps that could be highlighted better in this recommendation. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)\
That is most unfortunate as the list chosen specifically excludes any LGBT+ identified people. Not good news at all for anyone wondering if the strategy process has taken the current widely recognized serious bias and harassment on Wikimedia projects targeting LGBT+ topics and LGBT+ editors seriously, especially as this is a regular experience and concern for transwomen, nonbinary and genderqueer people. Sorry, it just seems weird for us to be rendered invisible so late in this process of consultation. -- (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi , Thanks for joining the discussion. Sorry you feel we overlooked LGBT+ contributors and topics in our work. Inclusion and harassment of LGBT+ editors and topics came up frequently in many working group conversations. This present in our notes which we used to draft the recommendations. We discussed even how to support and protect contributors who live in countries where sexual orientation and gender are restricted by law. We want all contributors to be safe and appreciated and all topics to be balanced. Many groups had living documents where they kept notes, articles, feedback, etc. You can access many of those on meta via the Wikimedia 2030 hub. I don’t think we’re excluding LGBT+ from the recommendations in spirit, but perhaps we weren’t explicit here in the language. Could you suggest some language you’d like to see in this recommendation? Best, Jackiekoerner (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, though this is not an individual's feelings, as everyone can read and has been published. Please avoid framing this as what is personally in one person's head, rather than verifiably on the page in the published recommendations.
As you have recognized it is not sufficient to be inclusive "in spirit" but fail to be explicitly inclusive. Rather than relying on a glossary buried within a reference that borrows language from a another obscure reference targeted for schools, the Wikimedia community fully recognizes that it has failed in the past on Wikimedia projects to be inclusive or representative for women, queer/LGBT+ minority groups and those with a cultural heritage for whom traditional sources are negatively biased.
Rather than floating the word "inclusive", the headline needs to address this known imbalance by naming these minority groups, ensuring that later reports, analysis and initiatives continue to address the known bias in our content and our own unacceptable tolerance for hostile marginalization and systemic bias against those that are seen to represent these groups.
No doubt in undocumented meetings the many workshops have discussed potential groups, using this context it would be good to see a measurable statement like "Gender, cultural background, nationality or ethnic origin, queer or LGBT+ identity, age, religion, and disability" at the top level.*
*- Translating these concepts and defining their coverage is not insignificant. Writing from the UK I have not included "race", as cultural background and ethnic origin are meaningful and measurable compared to the American English usage of "race". Nationality and ethnic origin would need to cover non-discrimination based on limiting access based on language or language skills. "Disability" is frequently used with a legal definition, but in our context may benefit from being reworded more clearly to address non-discrimination outside of those conventional definitions such as for those who have mental health issues including periodic anxiety or depression.
-- (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
This input on language is helpful and will be considered (as the rest of feedback, all being captured) for the final revision. As Jackie mentioned, LGBT+ related issues, along with other groups, were raised in the Strategy discussions before, and if such issues haven't made it here explicitly that would be either accidental or due to an impression that it was implicit in other parts of the text. I completely agree that a Strategy document should have the definition of inclusivity clearly stated, with consciousness that such a definition should be very cautious not to accidentally exclude/drop any other groups by the very act of putting it into specific words --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC).
Moving forward what are your thoughts about the strategic direction of the WMF concerning the proposed charter and existing vision of the organization and the organized volunteers, teams or hubs in nations with national laws that are discriminatory and national governments trying to control the flow of online information within their countries. Do you forsee a negative impact in promoting diversity within these countries .Alexplaugh12 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I totally agree with Fae on this : LGBTIQ people, women (especially in the francophone version) and minorities have an invisibility cloak there. We know from experience that naming explicitely the problems helps to set clear limits to harrassement. we need to be explicit in adresssing the issues, otherwise we are sending a mixed message to harrasssrs "we are against harrasssment but fear community backlash". This is the time to stand up alltogether to set a clear direction for the future. It will certainly rock the boat, but there are also people from the community that support a clear position of the WMF on these subjects. Be bold, in other words. If everybody shuns away from naming the problems, we will never solve them, because we will be applying solutions to sugar coated definitions, setting a unclear direction that will remain for years to come. (speaking from the francophone community, as member of the project #lessanspagesNattes à chat (talk) 10:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This might be a double edged sword. By listing out who the community wishes to include, it also may show who the community wishes to exclude by not listing those groups as well. There are groups which feel excluded, because the community focuses on the inclusion of other groups. Granted no one can please everyone, but just putting it out there.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Please name a minority group in the Wikimedia context that you would like to see added in the above proposed measurable statement. Thanks -- (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

It would be simpler (and more inclusive, I suggest) to assert the goal as a catch-all statement – don't list groups. The "anyone" in "the Free Encyclopaedia that Anyone can Edit" has worked well: "that anyone, regardless of gender expression, sexual orientation, medical condition, ..." is redundant. Then, separately, set particular measurable goals for each target group identified, if desired. EddieHugh (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

No, it really has not "worked well", apart from working well for those with the strongest voices. It has never worked well on many non-English Wikipedias and the English Wikipedia has been unable to tackle the majority re-enforcing policy of 'notability' to cater for its built-in systemic bias against minority groups and their automatically dismissed minority sources. Consequently, the most historic and longest-running gay society in the UK will never have an article, despite being critical to the evolution of LGBT+ social spaces in the UK. Truer would be that it's an Encyclopaedia that anyone can try to edit, and if they are called out by the majority heteronormative cis-male peanut gallery as a SJW or minority lobbyist, they can expect to be treated as a vandal.
That's the real Wikipedia experience today for many women, trans-women, non-binary, genderqueer editors. I read their horror stories off-wiki (because even talking about their experiences and viewpoint on-wiki is not safe) every week of how crazy offensive and unpleasant the environment is in several language versions. "Inclusion" will continue to mean nothing unless it is spelt out so that nobody can dodge around it. -- (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
What is the most historic and longest-running gay society in the UK that will never have an article? Are you talking about the en:Beaumont Society? Vexations (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to know, too. There's no such thing as a topic that "will never have an article". If the sources exist, then the article can be created (and kept). What would your proposal be for article inclusion criteria that allowed, say, the society you mentioned to have an article but continued to exclude, say, a minor business that has had little or no independent coverage? EddieHugh (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Un code de conduite pour l'Humanité[edit]

Un code de conduite pour l'Humanité, rédigé par l'Humanité - ou en tout cas une frange représentative des diversités culturelles, politiques et idéologiques - ça va, on devrait y arriver d'ici à 2030. Noé (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


Unter dem Deckmantel alle Kulturen einzubeziehen wird hier versucht alles zu normen. Wikipedia wuchs gerade WEIL das bislang nicht so war. Auch bislang sind schon alle Möglichkeiten gegeben. Die angedachten Regelungen werden nicht zu einer Verbesserung beitragen, sondern genau das Gegenteil bewirken. Und einmal mehr wird übersehen, daß Wikipedia und Schwesterprojekte zu aller erst von Abertausenden Volunteers zu Hause geschrieben wird. In der Freizeit. Unbezahlt. Hier wird versucht mit Managementelementen aus den Freiwilligen eine Armee von gehorchenden Zombies zu schaffen. Wir sind keine Versatzmasse! Wir sind Menschen, die die Wikimedia-Projekte zu dem gemacht haben die diese heute sind. Daß jetzt Leute daher kommen, die zum Gutteil noch nie etwas in den Projekten geleistet haben, aber meinen alles besser zu wissen und den Autoren vorschrieben zu können, wie es besser und wie es überhaupt zu laufen hat, dürfte sich spätestens mittelfristig rächen. Der ganze Ansatz dieser Reform ist am Beharrungswillen der bezahlten Bürokraten, am ignorieren der wirklichen Forderungen aus den Communities und an der Ausrichtung an politischen Zielen gescheitert. Diese Pseudoreform per Ordre de Mufti (diese Diskussionen hier sind wie alle zuvor ein Feigenblatt) ist genau das. Ein Pseudoevent. Über Jahre gestreckt und im Ergebnis kommt im besten Fall Nichts, im schlechtesten die Gängelung und Knebelung der Communities heraus. Es bleibt dabei. Es gibt nur einen Weg der Reform: Dezentralisierung und Abschaffung des Wasserkopfes bei der WMF. Die WMF in ein wirklich freies Land (Island etwa) verlegen, dort Markenverwaltung, Rechtsvertretung und zentrales Spendensammlung für die Regionen der Welt, die das nicht allein stemmen können. Darüber hinaus sollten sich die Teilcommunities inhaltlich wie regional heraus bilden, die wissen am Ende in allen Fällen eine Million mal besser, was sie brauchen und wie sie es machen müssen, als die WMF. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hallo Marcus Cyron, danke für die Rückmeldung. Nur ein kleiner Hinweis: Empfehlungen bitte im Zusammenhang betrachten, siehe Förderung und Entwicklung verteilter Führung. Vielleicht ergibt das ein besseres Gesamtbild? Grüße --CJackel (WMF) (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Ich sehe leider das Gesamtbild und bin derzeit entsetzt. Vieles erinnert mich an meine ersten 14 Lebensjahre in einem anderen Staat. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Erwartete Ergebnisse[edit]

"Erstellung ..." - das Ergebnis ist wohl eher die Satzung/Verhaltenskodexes/Governance-Dokument usw.. Die die Erstellung ist der Prozess der zum Output führt. . ...Sicherlich Post 23:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Erstellung eines klaren und transparenten Verhaltenskodexe[edit]

Das ist der Universal Code of Conduct der auf der dortigen Diskussionsseite reichlich (ausschließlich?) negatives Feedback bekam aber offensichtlich erstellt wird; komme was wolle? .. und der wird dann zur Sicherung der Arbeitsatmosphäre Superprotect, Framban und Co legitimieren? ... warum heißt das hier Recommendations wenns offensichtlich längst beschlossene Sache ist? ...Sicherlich Post 00:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Progresses (or regressions) of societies[edit]

Nowhere does this recommendation mention "progress" or "regress" (or similar terms) in regards to multiple cultures or societies. How can cultural diversity be achieved when societies either progress (especially with newer moral codes and values), remain the same, or regress back to what society was back then? Does this recommendation promote tolerance of cultures? If not, does it want societies to be universal? If not, does it want societies to change? If not, then what impact does this recommendation intend on societies (or cultures)? George Ho (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@George Ho: I'm not sure I understand your comment. This recommendation is about making our movement more inclusive and welcoming by agreeing on a shared minimum standard of behavior. Are you asking what happens when that kind of behavior conflicts with the cultural norms of the surrounding society? --Tgr (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I think I may have (sorta?) meant what you asked. I think I also meant to ask what shared standards of behavior the Movement expects from (surrounding) societies. George Ho (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
This is a great question, and one for which I wish I had an answer! I think there are really two parts to this:
  • Protection of people where participation puts them at risk.
  • Respecting cultures
Both of these are super complex to break apart. These are things the working group members discussed at length during our discussions to prepare the recommendations. I can say that the first one will really be reliant on legal support and will depend on the particular situation at the time. The second is where a Universal Code of Conduct will help. We will have Wikipedia community norms, but also communities may develop their own Code of Conduct to better support their community and culture. You’re right, we do need to be sensitive to individual cultures, but also have a stance on our community norms. It’s tricky, and certainly something I’m excited to see happening in the future. Best, Jackiekoerner (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Noted. Alexplaugh12 (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The recommendation doesn't advocate change in societies, does it? George Ho (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Strike above. I saw "cultural change". Does "change" mean advocating progress or regress in societies? George Ho (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Jackiekoerner, I take your response as describing w:cultural relativism, w:moral relativism, or w:diversity ideologies, right? --George Ho (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

This should be simple: If a country adopts a law like the en:Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service and the local Wikimedia community decides that their local policy is that they should obey their (local) law, the other communities should revoke the membership of that community in Wikimedia. No policies shall be made to exclude any group from participation in Wikimedia, irrespective of state law. We will support the excluded groups, not the exclusionary state. While my first example is historical, and I don't suspect that any wikimedias would now consider excluding jews, take a look at en:Capital punishment for homosexuality for example. So, the rule should be that local Wikimedia communities may not ban homosexuals, even if homosexuality is a crime in their country. Vexations (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Support & Concerns[edit]

Hi. I'm writing because I think we do need a charter, and I think that shared values and principles are great. I have one problem with this recommendation: what are those values and principles? Is the movement charter a general thing, intended to encapsulate all values that are held by the community (which include safety/diversity/civility)? Or is it more narrow, tailored only to certain goals (and if so, which goals)? I want this to be a valuable exercise for the Community and Foundation, but it's impossible for me to give feedback when the proposal doesn't fully specify what its end result would be. Thanks and best, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

In the text of the recommendation, “principles” is hyperlinked to Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Principles (also linked in the left-hand side menu). Jean-Fred (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I'm aware of that, but since this was in the inclusion section I assumed that it would focus on that more. I suppose it doesn't really matter because it's not adopting an unspecified charter, but rather it is recommending a discussion to propose a charter (of course, the community may not want the kind of charter the Foundation wants at this time, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯). Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah ok − I thought you may have just missed it :-) Jean-Fred (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

define Charter[edit]

Expected outcomes lists "Create a Movement Charter of shared values and principles" as it's first outcome. Our English Wikipedia article on en:Charter, describes a charter as the grant of authority or rights. This doesn't seem to be what the work group meant. Shared values and principles are typically set out in a Code of Conduct. Can the work group please specify what they mean by "charter"? Do they intend to confer rights on someone or do something entirely different? If, so, what? Vexations (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

See also above. Mautpreller (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Highlights from the Arabic Speaking Conversations - Create Cultural Change for Inclusive Communities[edit]

On the first week of community conversations, 8 members of the Online Arabic speaking community discussed the second recommendation "Create Cultural Change for Inclusive Communities" on the Arabic Wikipedia Facebook group. Comments from editors were overall positive and supportive to the recommendation. An editor participated also in giving a suggestion to add in the recommendation: "The recommendation should mention that we have to focus on our common values rather than what is dividing us (as there are different cultures and laws in the world)". -- ASedrati (WMF) (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@ASedrati (WMF): - specifics would be good please (sans names, obviously), preferably a collapsed copy of all statements, so that I could then do a rough machine translation for. Without specifics it's tough to actually utilise. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, there were only two statements related to the "improvement" of recommendation from the discussion I had. They are the following:
  • "The recommendation should mention that we have to focus on our common values rather than what is dividing us (as there are different cultures and laws in the world)".
  • "The code of conduct should include explicitly points related to neutrality and its respect, especially for communities coming from regions that have bias (even if the members have a good faith, they have been thought wrong information in their context)".

Other reactions were simple likes or endorsements to the recommendation in general.

I hope that this helps. -- ASedrati (WMF) (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Feedback from French-speaking Wikimedians[edit]

  • There is general explicit support for the intention and goals of this recommendation
  • Several people supported the recommendation, saying that both offline entities and online communities need to take responsibility for community health (harassment issues, conflicts) and community active diversification
  • One user feels the outcome « code of conduct » should insist more on the need for contextualization in diverse cultures
  • Several editors, both men and women, think this recommendation is a good first step that should be implemented, but isn't going far enough yet, as regulation of behavior in communities is highly needed.

See feedback links and context here.

DRanville (WMF) (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC) - French Strategy Liaison

Support : this is the least we can have but we should do better[edit]

+++ to a global code of conduct and a charter 's not enough.

  • harassment : the word "harassment" could have been mentioned upfront (and translated) in the very first paragraph. Speaking of "maintaining a healthy atmosphere" when this is not the case in the first place given the level of documented harassment is like taking a very diplomatic approach to something very toxic. A global code of conduct is indeed badly needed, but is not sufficient and will not solve anything if we don't have dedicated people to enforce it and apply it (especially within the communities). More reflexion and ressources should be given on how to empower communities to find creative solutions against harassment : training people to use non violent communication, having more mediation opportunities (chapters would be a very convenient place to have these), having experts on each project that can intervene, funding a global anti harassment task force which will track and point abusive behaviors for sysops, working with past harrassers to see what would have been effective to stop abusive behavior, funding a support service for victims, funding an insurance system for contributors to face legal fees.

I post here what a contributor has posted on a recently set up project about harrassemnt. He mentionned a useful chart explaining what can be seen as abusive comments. We need more of these evaluations tools to think about our way to discuss and debate.

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement-en
Cible de Graham
  • diversity: this word makes minorities disappear. A charter and CoC must explicitly stipulate that no sexist, racist, hompohobic, transphobic or denigrating comments on age, race religion, identity, culture act is allowed and that people who use judgmental comments instead of expressing how they feel should be offered to change their wording and reflect on the consequences of the collective impact. This needs to be expressed in explicit terms, so that the message is clear. Sometimes, the wish to be politically correct can be a form of deriving towards acceptance of abuse.
  • moderation : we need more moderation generated within the community and not only by sysops. Anybody can create a project concerning harassment on a wikipedia page. There are solutions that can be "community generated". The WMF could list such projects and communicate about them in a bottom to top approach.
  • "Gracefully accepting constructive criticism" also needed. This is where freedom of speech lies, the possibility to take and give feedback and learn from it. The WMF and affiliates could reflect on practices of tone policing and silencing. Being from the French community, after #wmfrgate, this seems important : simple contributors and wikimedians all need to be protected from intrusion in their collaborative spaces (speaking as a contributor on francophone projects #lessanspages)Nattes à chat (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
This chart, and the detailed analysis of the proposal, is quite amazing to say the least! We're taking note of this, as well as the other feedback, but I would also strongly encourage you to share the same great insights on the UCoC proposal discussion. Given the more detailed level of that proposal (compared to this high level Strategy), this kind of input is extremely helpful --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC).


The word "safe" is used here without much elaboration. I suspect we need to indicate what it means and what it doesn't mean:

  1. Clearly, at the very least physical safety, but beyond that it is harder to be sure.
  2. Many (most? all?) of our projects have a longstanding rule against making legal threats against other users while continuing to edit, how exactly does that relate to this?
  3. Clearly there is some point at which language tips over into harassment, but it can often be a hard call to make: while it is not an perfect analogy, consider what happened with Gamergate on en-wiki, where the by far less well-intentioned gamer boys [and did I just violate these principles by saying that? So be it] knew how to stay just within the rules and prod their critics into stepping over the line. (Analogy is imperfect because the violations by the latter were not about the perceived safety of the gamer boys, but what if they had been? Again, all of that comes down to what "safety" means beyond physical safety.)

Jmabel (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this critical issue. You may find (at least in part) an answer to your question in the Safety & security Principle. Per the principle, it's about "making our environment safe" which probably means it includes "safety" in a variety of contexts, including mental and psychological safety.
As for how the new systems may interact with existing policies, I believe that discussion is intended for the implementation phase (later this year). As you're probably aware, there's an ongoing proposal for a Universal Code of Conduct that's separate from this Strategy consultation. I assume this kind of detail should be elaborated there over the upcoming months. From a purely personal point of view and reading of that discussion, I wouldn't expect the UCoC to override existing policies unless these policies have very serious issues or gaps: which, probably, wouldn't be a concern of major projects --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC).

Feedback from Wikiwomen Group on Cultural change for inclusive communities[edit]

It was discussed that different levels of incivilities among the conversations create a toxic environment and in order to improve the community health for marginalized communities, we need more conversations on analyzing how community feels.

Overall this recommendation received positive feedback about the prioritization of the procedures that can create a strong impact on making the environment safe for minorities. There was support offered to elaborate on the indicators that can measure the impact of gender gap and analyze the safety of the movement’s environment.RSharma (WMF) (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Wrong Concepts, topic 2 according official list[edit]

2. Create Cultura Change for Inclusive Communities

The challenge of Inclusive Communuties DOES MEAN only to accept the knowledge as unique criteria because the guarantee of minorities DOES MEAN only the knowledge as criteria. If not, who has more authority to discuss minority issues? The minorities themselves.

The Wikimedia must be a Cultural Change by Knowledge Empire, what it means: the Cultural Change prepares Knowledge Empire, and soon, will be also its result.

Cultural Change also DOES MEAN "Change Wikimedia Culture". In our case, it's the most important issue, cause we HAVE TO recognized our challenges. We look to ourselves - that's the most important issue. So, it's necessary the change. The trasnformation of ourselves will be born from knowledge as unique criteria.

And it really makes very very sense: for the Knowledge Empire, the knowledge as criteria.

So the idea is to select specialist people in each area to explain what is wrong in a information and how fix the user problem, through: a) prove (statistical numbers, citation, photo); and b) LOGICAL argumment. Also: CENSURE ONLY VANDALISM.

I'm sure that change interests the minority, cause is a guarantee: never deleted or blocked texts by stronger powers, but only if it is a vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Camillo Cavalcanti (talk)

Highlights from the Spanish Speaking Conversations - Create Cultural Change for Inclusive Communities[edit]

About 70-80 present in conversations at different degrees (not everyone said anything, of course). People who made public their opinion have positive regards about this recommendation and there is agreement on the need of a Code of Conduct. There are suggestions:

In "effects are not restricted to the online communities, but reach into external social media channels, off-wiki communities, workgroups, and organizations" it is demanded to include an explicit mention to chapters and UG.

Transparency is a basic word to be in any text. Decisions made in a way that affiliates don’t know how were made are useless. Also accountability is demanded, both for affiliates and WMF.


About movement chart: What if a community doesn’t want to adopt it? How to follow-up that we’re advancing into inclusion?--FFort (WMF) (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Highlights from the Catalan Speaking (Valencian) Conversations - Create Cultural Change for Inclusive Communities[edit]

"When Valencia CF was founded, Only a dozen people in a bar were enough to decide who was the president, by using the method of flipism. The first matches were played in a market-garden field. But as things grow up, member meetings bring together about 20,000 people, and matches are played in front of more than 40,000 spectators": We have to adapt to our current infrastructure. And this includes, among other things, that when it comes to include content in projects, we cannot rely on traditional encyclopedias and their standards because we are bigger than them.

This situation creates a number of problems, because if a community (wiki) is deletionist, they won’t care if it is a Charter, Affiliate, or random user who asks “please do the favor of including Youtubers”, because it turns out that youtubers are relevant but comunity may believe its not.

Fears about the Charter and the Documents: Who cares about documents and what are they good for, if the WMF Board keeps doing whatever they want without any user-control? More Problems: Amical has a higher level of exigence when it comes to discursive coherence than other affiliates. What if the charter is less demanding than the local community? Charter must be established as minimum content, and content must be not so minimal that its advantages are irrelevant.--FFort (WMF) (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Feedback from the Hindi Community members - Create Cultural Change for Inclusive Communities[edit]

Overall 8 Hindi users supported the recommendation. Two users believed that there should be a master movement governance document for all offline Movement bodies and organizations on grounds that this can pan out inequity within the affiliates and communities. One user commented that with awareness initiatives readers, editors and partners can develop better focus, trust and interest in the movement. Three users mentioned that evaluation to test the effectiveness of existing policies and procedures at different levels can be helpful as this can create equitable opportunities for participation concerning diversity and inclusion efforts for existing and future communities. One user mentioned that they are satisfied with the current level of the user interface experience from Wikimedia projects. RSharma (WMF) (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Feedback from Wikiwomen office hours from February 4 and February 9[edit]

There was support of 6 women for the Movement charter. It was mentioned that adding them in terms of service can be helpful. It was commented that cultural change is a politically correct American language. The meaning of this phrase changes in Francophone language. The words needed are prompt, “harassment issues will be tackled” but are not clearly expressed. It was mentioned by one user that it was difficult to engage with the document in French. It was also commented that the document is not adopted in the cultural context. Another user felt that the gender gap was not incorporated in the strategy document. RSharma (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Feedback from Office Hours from 2 February and 9th February with members from Emerging communities from South Asian and Africa[edit]

Anass Sedrati (Strategy Liaison - Arabic) and Rupika Sharma (Strategy Liaison - Hindi) hosted Office hours on two Sundays (February 2nd and 9th) to discuss with members of Emerging communities from South Asia and Africa. Overall, around 50 people in total participated in either of the calls, representing various areas and regions.

Over 12 people supported the recommendation. There was support expressed for the creation of Code of Conduct for a healthy working atmosphere. It was stated that the local communities and affiliates should be allowed their own Code of Conduct regulations but there can be a common standard Code of Conduct that guides the movement for the basic safety regulations. There was support expressed for establishing movement governance documents for all affiliates because we currently have a gap in the governance policies in movement, the ones that guides inter relationships with different affiliates. It was expressed that it is crucial to have a standard document for the movement governance that can guide affiliates to add their Bylaws, Articles of Association, Memorandum of Association, Code of discipline for members, directors and the staff from affiliate of any region. It was suggested that there should be a standard document that can be used as a template, that can later be tailor-made by affiliates depending on the local context. There was strong support expressed for the creation of evaluation models for equity and diversity. It was mentioned that movement governance document may not be comprehensive to people. We have a diversity of communities, some communities have good governance structure but in many emerging communities, it is lacking and such governance document can be helpful to them. But it shouldn't be imposed. There is diversity in movement structure itself. There are some communities that are well developed, others that are developing. We need to understand which problems will need to be solved if there is a universal code of conduct. If we can identify the current issues, what issues it will solve. Every community has its own way of work and conduct. We need basic guidelines to keep us under the same values. Local communities should have their own rules under a common code of conduct that should guide us. On Movement governance Guidelines, it was mentioned that there should be proper documentation and policy to guide relationships between different affiliates and organizations. There are affiliates people who have people skilled in governance, while others need to engage consultants and experts. To apply local code of conduct, we need to understand different points and the background before asking the affiliates to act. Users suggested that WMF can provide local lawyers or bylaws for affiliates needing it. It was stated that Bylaws are important to maintain structure and order; and all communities emerging or not should be encouraged to build one. And that is also part of the uniformity necessary for smooth running. Affiliates should be given some time to prepare their bylaws. RSharma (WMF) (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

As with your previous summaries (above and on other pages), there's no mention of how many people took part. EddieHugh (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello EddieHugh, I have added a background paragrapgh (first paragraph). I hope that it gives you a better picture regarding these office hours. Regards. -- ASedrati (WMF) (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. That's very useful information. So "Over 12 people supported the recommendation" means ~75% didn't support the recommendation. EddieHugh (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Feedback from Portuguese-speaking community[edit]

A female user refers that the support for new female contributors on the movement is important. Create environments where female users will feel safe and confident that they will not suffer with harassment or sexist jokes is part of the change she wants to see in Wikimedia related spaces.

She also acknowledges that the gender gap is an issue. However, we can’t only focus on the gender. What about the other marginalized LGBT groups? What about ethnic groups? They should also be represented on the document. She would like to see more affirmative actions contextualized on it.

A member of Wikimedia Portugal, mentions the introduction: “for when a community consistently fails to apply the standards” - He completes by saying that there may be occasions on that the community are not enough or haven’t enough resources to make decisions at their first stage. A universal code of conduct and means provided to the community so that they can hold on to it may be an excellent idea. LTeles (WMF) (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The reality: most of this is already in place[edit]

There have been governance requirements for off-wiki organizations for at least 15 years. These have changed over the course of time on a regular basis and, when next an agreement comes due with a movement organization, the new rules have been imposed. Movement organizations have always been active participants in the discussion of these agreements and requirements. They're not perfect, but they are dramatically improved over the requirements of ten years ago. So this recommendation does not reflect a change, it reflects the status quo; in other words, it reflects that this is and has been in a constant state of improvement. I do wonder, however, whether there is a good enough reason to require that a small user group create what can be a very significant infrastructure before it can gain any type of recognition or support; it's hard to see that as supportive of increasing diversity and helping these smaller groups (particularly geographically-based groups) to grow and develop. This is a sensitive issue.

Our larger online communities have always had a policy of inclusiveness. When I say "always", I mean since their creation. It is not always perfect. Our very small communities don't have enough of an infrastructure or participation rate to justify requiring formalization of a series of policies and guidelines; we should be honest enough to say that a lack of such programmatic activity will not result in their shutdown. The projects that have the shakiest history of inclusiveness are the mid-size projects where the majority of participants come from a limited geographic area, particularly a geographic area where there is either a longterm or recent history of conflict or significant political change. These are very difficult situations to resolve because the cultural issues on the projects reflect the cultural issues of the world outside of the project.

We must also be a bit cautious with the indiscriminate use of the term "inclusive". Certain projects are magnets for what could politely be described as unconstructive or problem users, whether or not those users are acting in good faith. Even on the largest projects, there is a limit as to how much volunteer time and energy is justified in trying to support such users. English Wikipedia indefinitely blocks about 400 registered accounts *a day* for various reasons that could be boiled down to "unconstructive"; that doesn't count the IP and IP range blocks, about half of which are made to reduce the impact of *known* unconstructive editors. As much as some people say "no no! we don't mean you have to include unconstructive or problem editors!" It is concerning, however, how often problem editors who are *also* individuals who identify as being in one or more groups that are considered under-represented claim that they are being excluded because of their group membership rather than their own behaviour. As someone who has always been in one of those under-represented groups, I find this very, very concerning. Risker (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Feedback from Tanzanian Contributors[edit]

Create Cultural Change for Inclusive Communities Opinions:

  • 1.The proposed universal code should also be in such a way that it fits in all cultures because if not the universal code will be of much favor to majority rather than minority groups.
  • 2. Age rating is not discussed anywhere hence due to growing usage of tech there should be rules, codes that focuses on guidance of minors especially to contents that are aged based rated example violence, sex, warfare etc. Czeus25 Masele (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • 3. Having a well and organized community is something very impressive and good for all the members of the community. I f we can fall under the same rules and guidelines it will be proper for all. I strongly recommend this. Thank you Magotech (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.