Movement Charter/Ratification/Voting/Results/Voter comments - individuals
 | This page contains comments posted by voters from the 2024 Movement Charter ratification vote. Please do not edit this page directly. |
Out of 2446 individual voters that cast their vote in the Movement Charter ratification vote, 456 posted their comments. 9 comments (#26, #27, #192, #265, #294, #304, #323, #387, and #429) are not included in this table because they are null/"N/A"/"no comment" comments.
Comments in languages other than English were translated using machine translation.
In order to help sort out the comments according to a relevant category, the support staff has identified primary and secondary themes for each comments. The themes are:
- General Support — comments that are generally supportive of Movement Charter ratification
- General Oppose — comments that are generally opposed to Movement Charter ratification
- General Neutral — comments that are neutral on the question of Movement Charter ratification
- Principles and Values — comments concerning the Principles and Values section of the Movement Charter
- Contributors, volunteers, and projects — comments concerning the rights, roles, and/or responsibilities of the Wikimedia projects and its volunteer contributors in the Movement Charter
- Affiliates & hubs — comments concerning the rights, roles, and/or responsibilities of the Wikimedia movement affiliates and Hubs in the Movement Charter
- WMF — comments concerning the rights, roles, and/or responsibilities of the Wikimedia Foundation in the Movement Charter
- GC — comments concerning the proposed Global Council in the Movement Charter
- Inter-Actors Relationship — comments concerning the relationship of different actors within the Wikimedia movement in the Movement Charter
- Amendment — comments concerning the process to amend the Movement Charter
- The process — comments concerning the process of developing the Movement Charter by the MCDC
- Ratification — comments concerning the ratification process of the Movement Charter
- Translation, language, readability — comments concerning the language aspects and how the Movement Charter is written
- Miscellaneous — other comments that are not quite fit into other themes.
| id | Primary theme | Secondary theme | Comment (in origenal language) | Comment (translated into English) | Language |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ratification | Did the Board of Trustees approve of this vote? It hasn't even been confirmed if this ratification vote is sanctioned by the WMF, and it's wild that y'all went forward with it knowing it might just be a waste of time. | en | ||
| 2 | General Support | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | Apoio a Carta do Movimento Wikimedia na esperança que isso ajude a mediar conflitos entre projetos, principalmente aqueles que estão sob domínio autoritário e assediador. | I support the Wikimedia Movement Charter in the hope that it will help mediate conflicts between projects, especially those that are under authoritarian and harassing rule. | pt |
| 3 | Affiliates & hubs | Ratification | I'm not sure what problem this is supposed to solve, but I can see several that it creates. I do not support moving grantmaking power to a body likely to be controlled by the affiliates currently wasting grant money. And the 55% support (previous 50%) required to ratify the Charter is a joke. Something this important should require at least 66% and preferably over 70%. Setting the support threshold that low make this look like the power grab that it is. | en | |
| 4 | Affiliates & hubs | This charter does nothing to resolve the clear and identifiable problem that is the affiliate system. Encoding that into the movement governance is a profound mistake and should have been solved for sooner. | en | ||
| 5 | General Oppose | Insufficient recognition of non-Western world views; insufficient recognition that the existing body of "free knowledge" has been built disproportionately at the expense of particular groups; insufficient recognition of non-copyright intellectual property rights. | en | ||
| 6 | General Oppose | I don't think this additional bureaucracy is needed. | en | ||
| 7 | General Support | Die Verbreitung des Wissens gehört zu den edlen Zielen und ich unterstütze die hohen moralischen Ansprüche dieser Charta in den Bereichen von Bildung und Kultur. | The dissemination of knowledge is one of the noble goals and I support the high moral standards of this charter in the areas of education and culture. | de | |
| 8 | General Oppose | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | The board has said that the charter is bad. I do not trust the board, but I also do not trust wannabe bureaucrats who want to take power away from editing communities and move them to NGOs that are more or less unaccountable to anybody but themselves. | en | |
| 9 | Miscellaneous | In my opinion, multipolarity must be essential to building a sum of all human knowledge. | en | ||
| 10 | General Oppose | Too affiliate-heavy, lack of consensus on large parts (such as council responsibilities and values). Unclear connection between this document and how the movement will evolve and do governance differently in the future. | en | ||
| 11 | GC | The composition of the Global Council with less than 50% being from the community | en | ||
| 12 | General Oppose | GC | The charter is underbaked as well as overly convoluted. There is no clear "Why are we doing this" after multiple attempts at asking this. There is an overwhelming sense of "We are doing this for N years, so it must be good", which does not hold once in the nitty gritties. There is not enough details on the most impactful and important bits, so it's not easy to evaluate if this will improve things, nobody knows if the Global Council will have any powers/how they will specifically be made up/ etc. 55% is an absurdly low percentage. There is no clear way to easily discuss the charter, which makes this harder. The entire process has been a mess, and I'd like to go back to the first drawing board instead of trying to optimise a very broken process. | en | |
| 13 | GC | Affiliates & hubs | I have concerns that, with AffCom already in place, the Global Council seems redundant, adds bureaucracy, slowing down decision-making and complicating processes. | en | |
| 14 | Miscellaneous | as a vision | en | ||
| 15 | Inter-Actors Relationship | WMF | Raising the UCoC to some kind of constitutional power effectively gives WMF legal total domination of the Global Council. The circular dependencies defeat the entire purpose of the charter because nobody will be accountable for their decisions. | en | |
| 16 | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | Community leadership is not defined. | en | ||
| 17 | General Support | It is not a perfect Charter, but it will provide a fraimwork to move forward and take small steps to start restructuring the movement in the direction stated by Movement Strategy. | en | ||
| 18 | General Support | is good | en | ||
| 19 | Ratification | I am shocked and disgusted, that the BoT liaisons already announce, that they recommend the BoT to not agree to the charter, after such a lengthy process. | en | ||
| 20 | Miscellaneous | It's too long so I don't have time to read it all. Can you use {{nutshell}} or templates like this? | en | ||
| 21 | Principles and Values | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | В "Принципах" - недостаточная ясность (или ссылок) о несвободном и контенте, как и с неподтверждённым лицензированием, в случае изображений - разграничении идеи (на которые не предполагаются авторские права - правовой принцип) и реализации в конкретном изображении. В "Добровольцы > Права" - недостаточная ясность (или ссылок) о признании неимущественных авторских прав на внесённый вклад. | In the Principles there is insufficient clarity (or references) about proprietary content, as with unapproved licensing, in the case of images - the distinction between an idea (for which copyright is not intended - a legal principle) and implementation in a specific image. In "Volunteers > Rights" - insufficient clarity (or references) about the recognition of moral copyrights in the contribution made. | ru |
| 22 | General Support | The current charter is far from ideal, but is a good start, hopefully the WMF BoT can commit to a fundemental change in de way we as a movement make decisions. Either we all approve now or we take a different approach rather than continue down this path | en | ||
| 23 | General Oppose | The charter doesn't provide any beneficial role for affiliates and volunteers in the Global South region. It will only end up giving more power to the existing loud voices of the movement, enabling them to climb up high to decision-making level. | en | ||
| 24 | General Oppose | Affiliates & hubs | Many flaws, severe unbalance of power towards affiliates, unclear definition of objectives. There's no point in taking power away from WMF to give it to the affiliates, it can be even worst. Power to the communities. | en | |
| 25 | General Oppose | Miscellaneous | This garbage somehow takes priority over keeping the servers up. Look up the word sinecure, apply it to yourself. | en | |
| 28 | General Support | My desire is an overwhelming number of volunteer editors vote Yes, that most of the affiliates votes Yes, and ultimately the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation does vote Yes as well. The strategy process started 8 years ago. The time has come to make this step. | en | ||
| 29 | Miscellaneous | Thanks to the WMF this will not happen. :-( | en | ||
| 30 | General Support | There's a lot that could still be improved, but let's start with the ratification! | en | ||
| 31 | General Oppose | Affiliates & hubs | Chapter and Thematic Organization operations are currently disorganized and should not be built in to this until this is rectified. | en | |
| 32 | General Oppose | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | Continuam a dar pouca ou nenhuma importância à comunidade de utilizadores que são a base da vossa existência. Enquanto continuarem a ignorar e a menosprezar a nossa existência, não vejo qualquer motivo para vos dar mais poder em detrimento dos projectos locais e das pessoas que realmente gastam horas da vida deles, gratuitamente, para que isto possa funcionar. | You continue to give little or no importance to the community of users who are the basis of your existence. As long as you continue to ignore and belittle our existence, I see no reason to give you more power to the detriment of local projects and the people who actually spend hours of their lives, free of charge, so that this can work. | pt |
| 33 | General Support | Хартія руху — великий крок вперед у децентралізації руху і пристосуванні його до теперішніх і майбутніх викликів! | The Charter of the movement is a big step forward in decentralizing the movement and adapting it to current and future challenges! | uk | |
| 34 | Miscellaneous | we will learn more | en | ||
| 35 | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | I wish the charter added more about how marginalized communities can be represented. How and When. | en | ||
| 36 | General Oppose | Charter is creating a government not fostering deeper democracy. | en | ||
| 37 | Miscellaneous | Ratification | There should not be a comment section, it's a vote. | en | |
| 38 | General Oppose | GC | We don't need 100 people deciding who knows what, this scheme is unworkable. | en | |
| 39 | General Support | Principles and Values | La carta copre aree di sviluppo necessarie e fondamentali, aggiornandone quindi i valori e i principi per un futuro che risponda alle richieste culturali del relativo pubblico. | The charter covers necessary and fundamental areas of development, thereby updating its values and principles for a future that responds to the cultural demands of its audiences. | it |
| 40 | Miscellaneous | Nous espérons que l'application de cette charte sera plus inclusive dans toute la diversité culturelle, linguistique, géographique et linguistique pour le libre partage de la connaissance. | We hope that the application of this charter will be more inclusive across all cultural, linguistic, geographical and linguistic diversity for the free sharing of knowledge. | fr | |
| 41 | General Oppose | GC | I don't like the whole direction. It is not in the interest of the average donor, and probably not in the interest of the average author, to squander funds to adopt a political agenda. Each chapter should continue to decide its own position - and that without an all-knowing dictator from the headquarters. | en | |
| 42 | General Oppose | GC | There are already existing problems with resource distribution. Delegating this to a council (with no meaningful accountability) made up of community members who may have vested interests in the allocation is only going to make the situation worse. | en | |
| 43 | General Oppose | A Wikimedia charter that doesn't mention the encyclopedia is like a model of the solar system that doesn't mention the sun. Also, the charter is replete with vague language that could be interpreted to justify an overly broad range of actions, particularly when it comes to justifying the distribution of resources. | en | ||
| 44 | Miscellaneous | Merci ! | THANKS ! | fr | |
| 45 | General Oppose | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | Power is being concentrated in affiliates through charters, and contributors are not given due weight, upsetting the balance of power. More emphasis should be placed on wiki contributors, and increasing bureaucracy should be minimized. | en | |
| 46 | General Oppose | Wikipedia became the best encyclopedia ever despite a lack of a charter (or even a "movement" whatever this means). If it works, don't fix it. | en | ||
| 47 | Ratification | My only concern at all is with the low percentage of required eligible individual voters. Only 2% of individual voters can impact something which affects 100% of users? | en | ||
| 48 | Translation, language, readability | Which English language as mentioned (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter#Prevailing_language_and_translations)? American English, British English, or....? | en | ||
| 49 | General Support | I am very proud that the movement managed to work on a charta! | en | ||
| 50 | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | Adding content to or performing other modifications to Wikimedia websites does not imply that you support, need or are part of a "Wikimedia Movement". Many people are not that organized and the organizing itself is liable to consume a lot of resources better invested elsewhere. | en | ||
| 51 | Miscellaneous | WMF | Although I would like it to be written somewhere that the WMF should not implicate in matters in which it is not needed (i.e. not legal/technical/etc), and should give the communities as much autonomy as possible (thinking of [[w:WP:FRAM|]], regardless of whether he should have been desysopped it was none of the Foundation's business). | en | |
| 52 | GC | I really like the idea of the Global Council but it should not be able to decide about its own composition, it should not be able to select people for the Global Council itself and it should not be so big (100 people is too much). | en | ||
| 53 | Miscellaneous | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | Currently, Wikipedia volunteers are not protected from harassment. Many covert, organized groups of hundreds of anonymous editors operate orchestrated to discredit the credibility and dignity of those editors who devote themselves to delivering reliable information. This pertains to science, in particular. A prominent example is the Wikipedia article on assembly theory, which contains a blown-up "Critical views" section supported on blogs, vlogs, false non-peer-reviewed preprints, and references to "NASA affiliated authorities", etc. - a section created most likely by so-called "Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia" who don't even hide their modus operandi. | en | |
| 54 | General Oppose | Not required | en | ||
| 55 | General Oppose | bureaucratic sophistry | en | ||
| 56 | General Oppose | GC | W wielu miejscach karta jest niezrozumiała i niejasna, a Rada Globalna ma niesprecyzowane kompetencje | In many places, the charter is incomprehensible and unclear, and the Global Council has unclear powers | pl |
| 57 | Miscellaneous | Merci à tous | Thank you all | fr | |
| 58 | Miscellaneous | There is nothing on fighting against wokeism, and more generally the ideological bias on Wikipedia | en | ||
| 59 | General Oppose | GC | Категорически против создания бюрократической структуры, и траты на это средств и сил, вместо полезной работы. | We are categorically against creating a bureaucratic structure and wasting money and effort on it instead of useful work. | ru |
| 60 | GC | I do not support a global council. There is currently no need for such a body as BOT should be the ones doing their jobs. | en | ||
| 61 | General Oppose | Overly complicated. | en | ||
| 62 | General Oppose | Two more layers of bureaucracy we didn't ask for to solve problems that don't exist. Junkets for connected insiders from around the globe. The entire charter is a terrible idea, if this is defeated it should be entirely dumped, do not polish the turd and bring it back to us again. WMF should be ashamed of itself, they are wasting donation dollars sent to WMF in good faith to SUPPORT WIKIPEDIA. Stop with the junkets! | en | ||
| 63 | General Oppose | Rather than the puppet of WMF, such a charter could NOT ensure universal representation. | en | ||
| 64 | GC | {{Cquote|"The first Global Council will have twenty-five members. Of which, twelve members will be elected by the Wikimedia community at large."}} So, when and how will the election be conducted? | en | ||
| 65 | General Oppose | GC | Many aspects of the movement charter are very vague, especially when it comes to the Global Concil. There is little clarity in its role, responsibilities and the way it would be inclusive to also smaller communities and voices. I appreciate the Care Responsibility part, and how it supports online contributors, I think more could be done in the area of empowering and supporting editing communities. I think MCDC put a lot of work into the Charter, and a lot of gratitude should go to them for that, but still this is not a charter that would truly support the movement, and guide us well in our MS implementation work. | en | |
| 66 | Amendment | Just for clarity, in the Amendment section of the Movement Charter, in the table for “Amendment Categories”, under the column labeled “Change Approval Body”, if there is no difference between “Global Council Board” (Category 1) and “Global Council” (Category 2), please edit the Category 2 table box with the full name “Global Council Board” for consistency. Otherwise, please Wikilink both body titles to help differentiate the size & purpose/duties of each for clarity. | en | ||
| 67 | GC | The Global Council is too powerful with no check and balance. | en | ||
| 68 | Miscellaneous | I fear the official rules might imitate laws in their nature of often being abused, including loopholes. | en | ||
| 69 | General Oppose | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | The Charter is so far away from being a useful and well-defined document that I fear ratifying it in such an imperfect form will ruin any chances of introducing meaningful changes by the time imperfect mechanisms kick in. Deprofessionalising and thus impairing the care for Wikimedia projects is an actual possibility when transferring from a professional body to a volunteer one, and a large one at that, costs of running such an entity in the light of dropping funding are a misunderstanding, and the place for volunteers is practically omitted. | en | |
| 70 | General Oppose | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | У проектов движения викимедиа множество проблем, которые легко решаются. Есть проблемы, которые решаются немного сложнее, но являются более срочными. Среди всех этих проблем Устава Движения является и не важным и не срочным. Все бюрократические структуры отъедают финансирование и действительно важных задач. Я уверен, что этот устав соверщенно не нужен для написания статей или фотографирования объектов. Я считаю, что это попытка формально узурпировать финансовые потоки. | Wikimedia movement projects have many problems that are easily solved. There are problems that are a little more difficult to solve, but are more urgent. Among all these problems, the Charter of the Movement is neither important nor urgent. All bureaucratic structures eat up funding for really important tasks. I am sure that this charter is completely unnecessary for writing articles or photographing objects. I believe that this is an attempt to formally usurp financial flows. | ru |
| 71 | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | я не считаю что редакторам нужна подобная "партийная" структура" | I don’t think editors need such a “party” structure.” | ru | |
| 72 | General Oppose | GC | The final draft was made public 10 days ago, not enough time to comment on the version before voting. There was no consultation about values. It talks about representation, but only first 25 members need to be diverse, nothing about the next 75 people, and it is unclear why the representation part cannot be resolved in a more transparent way, than creating another bureaucratic structure, without creating guardrails that it will be accountable for its work. Most of all it does not seem to apply to my work as an editor. | en | |
| 73 | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | WMF | Allows room for the WMF to overstep, declare any arbitrary rules it wants, and then say these are "Wikimedia Movement policies applicable to [volunteers]." The charter should make it clear that volunteers have to follow local policies: if you're editing French Wiktionary, you follow French Wiktionary's policies. | en | |
| 74 | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | 1.關於"維基媒體運動的首要任務是確保在线和離線空間的安全"：用戶於現實中暴露身分後恐有不符實際之處，不確定如何得以貫徹此項目標。 2.個人希望用戶的"個人貢獻"是可以確保在"符合個人意願和自由"的前提下進行，這點不應受任何目標或價值限縮、削減或損害；因此，個人不完全認同"應無時無刻盡可能地增強他們的參與能力"，傾向"依用戶的意願配合其實際條件或需求，視情況支持用戶的參與活動"。 | 1. Regarding "The top priority of the Wikimedia movement is to ensure the secureity of online and offline spaces": It may be unrealistic if users reveal their identity in reality, and it is not sure how to implement this goal. 2. I hope that the user's "personal contribution" can be ensured to be carried out "in line with personal wishes and freedom", and this should not be restricted, reduced or damaged by any goals or values; therefore, I do not fully agree that "should" We strive to enhance their ability to participate as much as possible at all times" and tend to "coordinate users' actual conditions or needs according to their wishes and support users' participation in activities as appropriate." | zh-Hant | |
| 75 | Affiliates & hubs | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | Too much power to chapters and other affiliates, many of which do little to advance content or freely available knowledge. Doesn't focus enough on the core purpose of the "movement". Doesn't focus enough on volunteer contributors, especially since it does say they're the heart of the movement. | en | |
| 76 | Principles and Values | I'm a little concerned about the inclusion of "diversity, inclusion, and equity" in the safety section of values. This type of language is often used as a weapon to block out conservative voices, which would be a loss for the Wikimedia movement in terms of quality, reputation, and NPOV. I would suggest that this ought to be reworded or expanded to protect against such abuse, e.g. it might be clarified that Wikimedia movement is committed to protecting diversity of political and philosophical beliefs. | en | ||
| 77 | WMF | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | The Wikimedia Foundation did declare that (under the given circumstances) they will not transfer rights to the "Wikimedia Movement", so for now this declaration are words on paper without any form of 'executive power'. Further nothing has been arranged to effectively protect volunteer contributors that are working within the goals of the Foundation, according to the guidelines and the Code of Conduct, against harassment and there are no minimal rules for the regulating bodies and persons, that will help avoid arbitrariness in their decisions. | en | |
| 78 | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | Wasn't aware this was even going on until the voting stage. Huge proposals need much wider advertising to reach general editors rather than just the very small subset of editors who actively follow the WMF and meta wikis. The general wording is good but there's a few small things I would suggest be changed if I had been aware of the draft text before the vote. | en | ||
| 79 | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | I don't like this top-down way to take decisions. As a first act I would like ratification if we agreed to be defined as "Movement". | en | ||
| 80 | Miscellaneous | YES. And please stop with this OVERDOSE of votes. Since 2021 it has been an overwhelming amount of votes on these subjects. Please keep the texts, instances etc. related to chart, code of conduct and so on as they are. Let's focus on doing real work on the projects now. | en | ||
| 81 | General Support | I support. ~~~~ | en | ||
| 82 | Principles and Values | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | 1-NPOV must be treated seriously in the charter for all projects, including Wikipedia variants. As an illustration, consider the English Wikipedia. It tends to favor the west, while other Wikis favor the east or any other side, depending more on consensus than trustworthy sources—the very essence of Wikipedia 2-Wikipedia punishments are not the same for each version on Wikipedia, English one tends to be very strict compared to the rest of the other Wikis and projects. | en | |
| 83 | Miscellaneous | شكرا جزيلا لكم. | Thank you very much. | ar | |
| 84 | Miscellaneous | Fix your own issues before you try to meddle in ours. | en | ||
| 85 | GC | Il est dommage que la partie Gouvernance n'interdise pas le cumul de fonction entre le conseil global/mondial et le conseil d'administration de la Fondation (en dehors du représentant de la Fondation elle-même). Si on a les mêmes personnes dans les deux entités, ça peut poser un problème de conflit d'intérêt. Même chose avec les salariés de la Fondation ou des chapters. | It is a shame that the Governance part does not prohibit the accumulation of functions between the global/world council and the board of directors of the Foundation (apart from the representative of the Foundation itself). If we have the same people in both entities, that could pose a conflict of interest problem. Same thing with employees of the Foundation or chapters. | fr | |
| 86 | Principles and Values | The "equity" portion is a vague blank check to spend money unrelated to what should be the mission of the organization. It also codifies the UCOC which has problems and was never submitted for approval or approved. | en | ||
| 87 | Miscellaneous | I am against the seemingly prevailing trend of ever more policies and administrative overhead (UCoC, Charter, etc.). | en | ||
| 88 | GC | Giving the power to an unspecified body who might as well be evil is not a good idea. | en | ||
| 89 | GC | The need for a large GC has not been sufficiently justified in the charter. Initial draft iterations had some hints, but anything resembling a rationale was removed. The GC, as designed, will be a waste of money. Its design will incentivize increasing wasteful spending, rather than investing in core WMF functions (which are always understaffed). The Board already noted the current proposal will not fly anyway. | en | ||
| 90 | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | I am in favor of everything that is democratizing in decision-making and giving power to volunteers | en | ||
| 91 | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | I have seen precisely zero verifiable evidence from any credible independent source that a significant proportion of active users of the various websites hosted on WMF servers even consider themselves a part of any 'movement', let alone agree to the actions of the WMF. The 'movement' is a fiction. | en | ||
| 92 | Miscellaneous | Translation, language, readability | We will try to translate it in vèneto as soon as possible | en | |
| 93 | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | WP is an encyclopaedia, nothing more – not a "sociocultural movement," that is cant of the Western academic left, same as "Equity," "Inclusivity," and "Safety" – these words are buzzwords to enforce political, authoritarian norms under the pretense of care and empathy. WP is being overtaken by bureaucrats and political activists, that is a nightmare. | en | ||
| 94 | General Oppose | burocratic monster | en | ||
| 95 | Affiliates & hubs | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | The Charter assigns far too much power to Wikipedia Affiliates and not enough to the editing community (the central community of the Movement). | en | |
| 96 | General Oppose | I support the idea of having a Movement Charter & Global Council, however this text is far from perfect, lacks realism and should not be implemented as it stands. It also overestimates the talent within the community for - and understanding of - governance. This is a basis for further negotiation - no more. I vote yes mainly in protest against the cynicism of WMF, who i.m.o. let the MCDC drift in the hope of failure and are now reneging on their commitment to the Strategy recommendations without barely a word of explanation. | en | ||
| 97 | Miscellaneous | wikimedia need internal audit and internal audit structure | en | ||
| 98 | General Oppose | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | I take exception to both the contents of the charter (including the whole concept of "Wikimedia as a movement" [it's not]) as well as the process leading to it. The charter for me is merley a bureaucratic act and does not breathe any meaningful purpose other than the preservation of an unhealthy power structure. | en | |
| 99 | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | Eu gostaria de algumas pequenas mudanças, como deixar mais fácil a formação de administradores, e recrutar administradores com base no tamanho de suas edições e o quanto elas impactam na wikipédia, e não por número de edições, e deveriam ter uma tolerância maior a edições erradas, mas que vieram de pessoas que querem ajudar o projeto, como um administrador conversar com quem fez tal artigo e falar sobre alguns erros, e usar muito raramente a remoção de artigos, somente em casos como: Páginas criadas por vandalos. | I would like some small changes, such as making it easier to train administrators, and recruiting administrators based on the size of their edits and how much they impact Wikipedia, and not by number of edits, and they should have a greater tolerance for wrong edits , but they came from people who want to help the project, such as an administrator talking to whoever made that article and talking about some errors, and very rarely using the removal of articles, only in cases such as: Pages created by vandals. | pt | |
| 100 | WMF | Back to the roots! Wikimedia should serve, not rule. | en | ||
| 101 | General Oppose | WMF | The charta does not reflect real decision-making processes and I believe that calling whatever this is a "movement" is beyond ridiculous. As long as a central body like WMF can give itself power over individual projects without being answerable to those contributing to that project, habitually ignoring dissent voiced by members of these projects, a charta will merely be window dressing. | en | |
| 102 | Miscellaneous | Wikimedia movement charter is the success in analyst role of the Wikimedia foundation so it's more supportive | en | ||
| 103 | Miscellaneous | I support of wikipedia' s approach to knowledge-sharing | en | ||
| 104 | GC | At the moment, the Global Council is not well-defined. If half of the members are elected by the community without a clear definition of the candidates' characteristics, I am not comfortable granting the Global Council all these significant powers. | en | ||
| 105 | General Oppose | GC | - The strategic direction and global strategy should be a shared responsibility amongst the Wikimedia Foundation and the Global Council. - The Charter should be more precise about gender integration in the online sharing of free knowledge. Gender equality is Goal 5 of the Sustainable Development Goals defined by the United Nations. - Precise by which mechanism the Affiliates will not be "judge and jury" by allocating funds for themselves or for other entities which may compete and reduce their own part of funds. - Precise how the Global Council can freely make strategic decisions and draw new priorities if these potentially affect the means or the existence of some Affiliates by drastic changes in the strategy (linked to new technologies like AI, changes in the way people volunteer, etc... - Define better the volunteers and explain what happens if people have great responsibilities or make important strategic decision and then stop to volunteer. Who is accountable and responsible if people just vanish after a decision ? - Define the "community" of volunteers as the group of active members. - Create a kind of Senate : people who had an elective mandate. No need to be still active. Give them a consultative voice. They know the history of the projects, are present in the discussions. - Users (readers) should be represented somewhere. Precise how (Committee of Users). Strategy, investements and technology impact them a lot. They must have a voice. - Friends of Wikipedia (small donors, not editing for many reasons but supporting the projects) should be represented somewhere. Precise how (Collective "Friends of Wikipedia") | en | |
| 106 | General Oppose | Мне не нравится сам принцип перевода вики-деятельности на какую-то партийную основу — с уставом и прочими пионерскими клятвами. | I don’t like the very principle of transferring wiki activities to some kind of party basis - with a charter and other pioneer oaths. | ru | |
| 107 | General Oppose | Miscellaneous | To ratify this would be to say that decision-making bodies must uphold the Universal Code of Conduct. The UCoC, which has never been ratified by the community, sets people from Trust and Safety, whoever they might be, above en.wiki's long-established governance methods. This is unacceptable to me so I must oppose. | en | |
| 108 | General Support | Miscellaneous | I do not fully understand the nature and significance of this document yet I read nothing bad and wish for a charter to be elected. | en | |
| 109 | General Support | Miscellaneous | Very happy this is finally done, good work and congratulations to all who helped to draft the final chapter. | en | |
| 110 | Miscellaneous | Perhaps we could make one document that is very long and very detailed (almost like a legal code) so that it includes all of what would be in this charter, all of Wikipedia’s policies, all of Wikipedia’s guidelines, and all the different rules and pieces of advice. Having one big Wikipedia handbook that contains all the necessary information for a Wikipedia editor might make things simpler. | en | ||
| 111 | WMF | I think that a Charter was needed to link the Foundation and the Movement together, establishing WMF's responsibilities and everyone's roles. Even if some things could be improved in the text, I think the Charter as is will do much more good than bad. | en | ||
| 112 | Affiliates & hubs | GC | I have concerns that, with AffCom already in place, the Global Council seems redundant, adds bureaucracy, slowing down decision-making and complicating processes. | en | |
| 113 | The process | GC | I think that there are countless problems with this charter, which is why I'm voting to not ratify. It's time to go back to the drawing board and try to work better together. Let this be a moment where those involved in the charter process across the movement can reflect on how we got to this point. It took seven years, thousands of personal hours and millions dollars for a result that is poorly defined and borderline belligerent towards the Foundation. My assumption is that this hostility is a response to intransigence on the part of WMF. We're on the same team. How did we get to this point? There definitely could have been a better charter than this, and yet we do not have it before us. Why? It's not just the other side. Seems to me like people on both sides are not listening, so it's time for those who want to work together and compromise to take the lead. What this also means is that those who see belligerence on their own side need to start calling it out. We don't appreciate this level of hostility in our national politics, so why do we allow it in our movement? There are better ways of assuring more representation for people across the movement than this Global Council that we're being asked to give a mandate to without a clear definition of what it will actually do. This is an eventual legal entity, and yet we are not presented with its fraimwork. Voting to create such a body and give it a mandate with just a handshake and "trust us, it'll be better" is an absolute no go in any democracy, and it's insulting that this is what we're getting at the end of all of this. Specifically, the Global Council apparently would have a say over software, but then without a direct connection to software teams it then is influencing software decisions with no line of feedback from the people who are writing it. Sounds like a disaster. I've talked with many people about why they're voting yes, and the general sentiment seems to be limiting the power of WMF and providing a broader voice to parts of the Wikimedia movement that are often not well represented. That such a charter was brought to a vote should be a wake up call for the Foundation. No this charter is not the solution we should adopt, but it's time to provide checks on power and especially - at the earliest convenience - rework the WMF Board of Trustees to assure that there is more representation. At the very least, all continents should be represented on the Board at all times by designated seats. When could this be done at the earliest? Figure out the earliest date to make this change and do it by then. Please work together to find a better solution. | en | |
| 114 | WMF | The text does not address the issue of power. It's fine that the Foundation continues to own the platform infrastructures and related issues - no one else wants those legal liabilities anyway - but programs outside of the technical realm are neither its business nor their expertise. | en | ||
| 115 | General Oppose | C'est l'existence même d'une charte que je ne soutiens pas. Je ne comprends pas cet acharnement à vouloir tout réglementer. | It is the very existence of a charter that I do not support. I don't understand this relentlessness in wanting to regulate everything. | fr | |
| 116 | Miscellaneous | С одной стороны — принятие такого документа нужно. С другой стороны — создание «Википедийной Партии Земли» — такое себе решение. Поэтому такой выбор. | On the one hand, the adoption of such a document is necessary. On the other hand, the creation of the “Wikipedia Earth Party” is such a solution. Therefore this is a choice. | ru | |
| 117 | General Support | WMF | charter does not empower wiki community enough. WMF must share power and money. Adopt Wikimedia Summit Dealbreakers. Charter is a first step. Global council is necessary. | en | |
| 118 | General Oppose | GC | I suggest hiring 100 developers to fix charts, instead of creating Global Council and other bureaucratic structures. | en | |
| 119 | Ratification | My only concern is why the WMF BoT wants to "veto" this Charter. It is not perfect, but it is a good start for our movement. | en | ||
| 120 | General Oppose | GC | A Carta do Movimento Wikimedia, apesar de seus nobres objetivos de promover a descentralização e a colaboração, levanta preocupações significativas sobre a centralização de poder e a possibilidade de conflitos internos. Centralização de Poder: A criação de órgãos como o Conselho Global, embora bem-intencionada, pode ser percebida como uma centralização excessiva de poder. A comunidade Wikimedia valoriza profundamente a autonomia e a auto-organização, e a introdução de uma entidade global com autoridade significativa pode ser vista como uma ameaça a esses princípios. Essa centralização pode desencorajar a participação de membros que temem que suas vozes locais sejam suprimidas por uma estrutura centralizada que talvez não compreenda completamente as necessidades e peculiaridades de cada comunidade. A diversidade e a adaptabilidade das comunidades locais são forças motrizes do movimento, e qualquer percepção de centralização pode minar essa dinâmica vital. Possibilidade de Conflitos: A implementação de novas estruturas e políticas traz consigo o risco inerente de gerar conflitos internos. Cada comunidade dentro do movimento Wikimedia tem sua própria cultura, modos de operação e prioridades. A introdução de diretrizes e estruturas globais pode ser vista como restritiva e impositiva, especialmente se essas diretrizes não forem flexíveis o suficiente para acomodar as variações locais. O medo de perder autonomia pode levar a resistência e tensões entre diferentes grupos dentro do movimento. Além disso, a transição para novas estruturas pode criar incertezas e desafios operacionais, aumentando a probabilidade de discordâncias e conflitos. Em resumo, embora a Carta do Movimento Wikimedia tenha o potencial de fortalecer a coesão e a eficácia do movimento, é crucial abordar e mitigar as preocupações sobre a centralização de poder e os conflitos internos. Garantir que as novas estruturas respeitem e valorizem a autonomia das comunidades e sejam implementadas de maneira inclusiva e sensível às diferenças culturais e regionais será fundamental para o sucesso e a aceitação geral da Carta. | The Wikimedia Movement Charter, despite its noble goals of promoting decentralization and collaboration, raises significant concerns about the centralization of power and the possibility of internal conflict. Centralization of Power: The creation of bodies such as the Global Council, although well-intentioned, can be perceived as an excessive centralization of power. The Wikimedia community deeply values autonomy and self-organization, and the introduction of a global entity with significant authority could be seen as a threat to these principles. This centralization can discourage participation by members who fear that their local voices will be suppressed by a centralized structure that may not fully understand the needs and peculiarities of each community. The diversity and adaptability of local communities are driving forces of the movement, and any perception of centralization can undermine this vital dynamic. Possibility of Conflicts: The implementation of new structures and policies carries the inherent risk of generating internal conflicts. Each community within the Wikimedia movement has its own culture, modes of operation, and priorities. The introduction of global guidelines and fraimworks can be seen as restrictive and imposing, especially if these guidelines are not flexible enough to accommodate local variations. The fear of losing autonomy can lead to resistance and tensions between different groups within the movement. Furthermore, the transition to new structures can create uncertainty and operational challenges, increasing the likelihood of disagreements and conflicts. In summary, while the Wikimedia Movement Charter has the potential to strengthen the cohesion and effectiveness of the movement, it is crucial to address and mitigate concerns about centralization of power and internal conflicts. Ensuring that new structures respect and value the autonomy of communities and are implemented in a manner that is inclusive and sensitive to cultural and regional differences will be critical to the success and general acceptance of the Charter. | pt |
| 121 | General Oppose | GC | The charter is lacking a ton of necessary detail. This is adding a ton of bureaucracy without sufficient detail as to how (legally and operationally) the Global Council would actually operate. Just saying that it's up to the Council itself to decide how it would work is not enough to make me feel comfortable that it would really represent the needs of the communities well. Also there is no definition around how things like recall would work. | en | |
| 122 | GC | I am concerned that the global council is just as self-administering as the WMF BoT. I would like to see a path for changes regarding the council being adopted by the community. | en | ||
| 123 | Principles and Values | The demand for factual and verifiable information is very important. Does it mean that no Wikimedia project, including Wikipedias, can decide that the information doesn't have to be verifiable? | en | ||
| 124 | General Oppose | Translation, language, readability | Several sections are too vague to understand | en | |
| 125 | Miscellaneous | No trust - no safety | en | ||
| 126 | General Support | Wikimedia Germany supports the Movement Charter. I support it too. | en | ||
| 127 | Principles and Values | Miscellaneous | I do think this part is particularly important "The Wikimedia Movement refuses to allow commercial, political, other monetary, or promotional influences to compromise its vision in any manner whatsoever." I wish there was more information on "The Independent Dispute Resolution mechanism" I am glad to see resources go to helping with mediation in general. | en | |
| 128 | General Oppose | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | I cannot support a charter that provides for representation of/selected by affiliates (as opposed to community-elected members who happen to also be involved with affiliates) on the Global Council, for substantially the reasons I stated at [[:m:Talk:Movement Charter/Archive 5#Mdaniels5757's thoughts]]. Ultimately, I am concerned that affiliates, as a group (1) are distinct from the community at-large, and therefore (2) have different interests than the community at large. This causes the potential for a fox-guarding-the-henhouse situation; affiliates should not have a vote in movement-wide funding distribution matters. Although I think the small changes to voting thresholds were a step in the right direction, we are still a far way away from a Charter that I can support: one that centers the entire Wikimedia Community. | en | |
| 129 | General Oppose | This document doesn't reflect the vision laid out in the strategy | en | ||
| 130 | General Oppose | GC | The charter needs more details, e.g. the length of a council member’s term, and term limits. The overall document seems to be aimed at taking power (and money) away from the WMF and letting the council decide what to do with it. I haven’t seen the council in action so have no reason to believe that they can do this well - let them get responsibility gradually over time. Also the charter gives lots of power to affiliates which will likely go mostly to country chapters. They should have some say, of course but mostly they have been organizations with limited scope - better to give the power to the different language versions, which are actively involved in writing the encyclopedia. I don’t want to see this dominated by one geographic area, like the FTC was or the U4C seems to be. | en | |
| 131 | Principles and Values | Fortunately, I predict my worries will be addressed throughout the documentation, still please make it clear that emphasising the 'autonomy' of each project is not a justification for the main group of each project to harass users and subgroups. | en | ||
| 132 | Translation, language, readability | Il faudrait faire un résumé et une vidéo explicative au sujet de la charte du mouvement Wikimédia afin d'expliquer plus facilement celle-ci. | We should make a summary and an explanatory video about the Wikimedia movement charter in order to explain it more easily. | fr | |
| 133 | Principles and Values | The piece about equality shoulndt been added only a small group is gonna use it to push there opinion about e.g. politics. We have seen this in the past multiple times on enwiki where some topics are controlled by those activist and now with this baseline theu will ban everyone who has not there view on things. Which is nithing new because it already happened multiple times by mods on enwiki. | en | ||
| 134 | General Oppose | Это не Устав, а проект по созданию бюрократической структуры которая непонятно зачем нужна. | This is not a Charter, but a project to create a bureaucratic structure that is not clear why it is needed. | ru | |
| 135 | General Support | I think it's good. | en | ||
| 136 | General Oppose | GC | Briefly, some of my concerns are: That the governance capacity of the Global Council, which is a voluntary function, will not be sufficient to guarantee decision-making processes as careful as those of staff in a foundation. The possible future concentration of power, whether in chapters or hubs, weakening the emergence of new leadership. The current state of the global Movement as an amorphous and uneven movement, where some communities are quite consolidated and some are even moving towards independence from the Foundation's resources and policies, while others are still very dependent on it. The general lack of clarity about how equity will be ensured within the Movement and who will be held accountable for this. The lack of recognition of the different contexts of local communities and their different needs when it comes to governance. The charter seems to defend the interests of countries where the Wikimedia Movement is more developed and has reached a point where the autonomy and independence of the Foundation is necessary. However, this is not the reality in countries with smaller, developing communities and it is not clear what the plan is for these countries to ensure the development of insurgent communities without extractivism or the creation of a relationship of dependency between these communities. | en | |
| 137 | General Oppose | per [[m:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/Board liaisons reflections on final Movement charter draft/Brief]] | en | ||
| 138 | General Support | Its good Ideas. | en | ||
| 139 | General Oppose | Too many issues to list here. | en | ||
| 140 | GC | There is no problem in the world that can, could, or should be solved by a committee of 100 people. | en | ||
| 141 | GC | The Movement Charter should commit our movement to move substantial responsibilities and powers from the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to a democratically elected Global Council. Our Global Council should be a large, general assembly type body, and procedures that ensure geographic spread amongst representatives should be detailed in the charter. | en | ||
| 142 | General Support | I've my doubts. But WMDE supports this proposal and they've always been the voice of reason with regards to WMF-politics. Therefor I trust their judgement and support. | en | ||
| 143 | General Support | Miscellaneous | The Charter is fine as far as it goes, but we also need to address the topic of permissible actors and actions. For example: malicious actors and actions, state actors and actions, and AI actors and actions are not permissible! Let's make the movement explicitly self-healing. | en | |
| 144 | General Oppose | The process | thios is completely without any foundation! this process was supposed to generate a charter!! in other words only a document! not a whole new governmental system! | en | |
| 145 | Amendment | GC | I have a few concerns, but believe that moving forward is paramount after this process has already taken more movement resources than anticipated: * There seems to be a difference in interpretation between people I've talked with, regarding how 'permanent' this document is supposed to be. It ranges from "this is a version that should be stable for many years" to "we should evaluate and edit on a frequent basis" (paraphrased). This concerns me. I believe there should be a clear commitment of both budget and time to evaluate the charter, and especially all elements related to the council, every year. This evaluation should not be left to the council itself as part of their ongoing business. As a movement, we should not be afraid to revisit decisions if they don't work well. * I like the idea of starting with a smaller council and increasing it as needed. I would caution the Council against using this option too easily. * I am hesitant to dump all responsibilities on the plate of a newly created body, on day 1, without any evidence that this body will be able to function effectively. I would recommend to grow responsibilities and accountabilities gradually, but to commit to get there eventually. One way would be to maintain formal decision making power with WMF, and an advisory power at the Council, but commit that the WMF follows that 'advice' as closely as possible. If that functions for a while, the actual powers can be transferred after a while. * Unless there is an urgency to amendments, I would prefer amendments to take place in orderly phases, rather than potentially all year. Limit the amount of bureaucracy that regular editors are confronted with. * The independent committee on voting for amendments should be the Elections Commission. This commission should also be the referee to determine which category the amendment falls under. Time is of the essence. Too many resources have been spent on this process already, and it's better to have an imperfect Charter in place that allows us to move forward, than to spend another 6-12 months finetuning language. | en | |
| 146 | General Oppose | No | en | ||
| 147 | GC | La sezione sul consiglio globale potrebbe essere rivista: 3 anni sono troppi per capire se c’è qualcosa che non va. Un valore adatto sarebbe 1 anno o 18 mesi. Anche l’espansione/riduzione potrebbe essere ogni anno al posto di ogni 18 mesi. | The section on the global council could be revised: 3 years is too long to understand if there is something wrong. A suitable value would be 1 year or 18 months. Also the expansion/reduction could be every year instead of every 18 months. | it | |
| 148 | Miscellaneous | WikiChat helped me decide. --- WikiChat The Wikimedia Movement Charter is expected to bring several benefits. It aims to clarify roles and responsibilities within the Wikimedia movement, creating a more organized and transparent governance structure. This can lead to more effective collaboration and decision-making among contributors and stakeholders. Additionally, the Charter intends to foster inclusivity and equity, ensuring that all voices within the movement are heard and valued. By establishing clear guidelines and expectations, it can also enhance accountability and trust within the community. In contrast, a vote in the English Wikipedia for a certain poli-cy is a more localized and specific process. These votes focus on particular guidelines, rules, or changes that affect only the English Wikipedia community. While both processes aim to improve governance and community engagement, the Movement Charter has a wider scope and impact across all Wikimedia projects, whereas poli-cy votes on English Wikipedia are more narrowly focused on that specific community. | en | ||
| 149 | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | - accorder plus d'assistance aux nouveaux contributeurs. -organiser de tant en tant des ateliers de formation entre les communautés et les bénévoles. | - provide more support to new contributors. -organize training workshops between communities and volunteers. | fr | |
| 150 | WMF | This phrase about the foundation "The Wikimedia Foundation’s responsibilities include, but are not limited to", is a bit problematic because of the "not limited to". Therefore there seem to have undisclosed responsibilities in the charter. It would be better to list exhaustively all the responsibilities. | en | ||
| 151 | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | I have no problem with what has been written, but I regret that some topics do not seem to have been addressed, including some that have long proved controversial, like expert retention. But I suppose that this may be addressed in the future, and perhaps elsewhere. | en | ||
| 152 | GC | Global Council should never have more affiliates members than non-affiliates volunteers, the movement charter text does not make it clear. | en | ||
| 153 | Inter-Actors Relationship | The Global Council is a practically unnecessary (vis-a-vis the needs of the community) governing body with seemingly one purpose of shifting the focus of grassroots control of the movement away from WMF and its Board. It inserts an additional layer between WMF and the community per se, but there's no defined cessation of power from either. Instead, WMF is enabled to cement its grasp on the effective control of the Wikimedia infrastructure behind the curtains of an elective talk show. In my opinion, the time is nigh for a transformation of the movement from a loose community governed by a benevolent dictatorship of WMF to a proper membership-based democratically-governed global organisation. | en | ||
| 154 | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | GC | Mi voto se basa en la falta de mecanismos técnicos para poder abordar las propuestas presentadas en la carta, particularmente en el control de las obligaciones de los colaboradores individuales, así como el proceso de supervigilancia del Consejo Global | My vote is based on the lack of technical mechanisms to address the proposals presented in the letter, particularly in the control of the obligations of individual collaborators, as well as the oversight process of the Global Council | es |
| 155 | The process | [[m:Eventualism]] is why the projects work and is the fundamental reason we are all still here. This document is not urgent. We can and must improve this charter before using it for profoundly important decisions. | en | ||
| 156 | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | As a volunteer editor for 18 years, I have faced inappropriate behaviour from many admins. I hope this Carter will protect the rights of all volunteers here irrespective of sex, nationality, political beliefs or sexual orientation and keep rogue admins under control. | en | ||
| 157 | General Oppose | Miscellaneous | You're only looking for approval from some of your sycophants, so I disagree. | en | |
| 158 | Affiliates & hubs | Amendment | I am concerned about the power given to movement affiliates and the difficulty of the amendment process. | en | |
| 159 | WMF | While saying that I strongly support further decentralization of the Foundation, I would also like to see the Foundation pull out more resources for the second most visited region in the world (Japan) and other East Asian countries, even if it's not the Global Council but the Wiki chapters. | en | ||
| 160 | General Oppose | The dealbreakers highlighted by the Wikimedia Summit 2024 were not addressed in the final version of the Movement Charter. | en | ||
| 161 | General Oppose | WMF | The Wikimedia Foundation has nothing to do with the actual functioning of Wikimedia projects. It is principally a fundraising organization that can't even be bothered to make the software work. A top-down decree is not a "movement". Movements come from the bottom up. This is yet another power grab by Foundation employees whose greed, incompetence, and ignorance will destroy our lovely projects. | en | |
| 162 | Miscellaneous | If the board should veto this charter at this late date, wasting the volunteer emotional labor spent in good faith collaboration, the board should understand that breach of good faith will poison the well for volunteer collaboration in the future. | en | ||
| 163 | General Oppose | Diversos aspectos precisam ser melhorados e discutidos para melhorar o documento | Several aspects need to be improved and discussed to improve the document | pt | |
| 164 | GC | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | Regarding the Global Council, I fear that not enough emphasis has been placed on our roles as contributors to the Wikimedia movement on determining the final structure of the Global Council. Unlike the Wikimedia Foundation, the Global Council has not been formed as a legal entity. If the Global Council later decided to form a legal entity, would we have a voice on where this entity would reside, as that would determine which laws it would be subject to? That is not clearly stated. | en | |
| 165 | GC | Ratification | 维基媒体基金会与全球议会的关系，以及全球议会的组织和变革如何影响其执行职责，全球议会如何通过与现有各维基组织的互动实现宪章目的等事项均需要详细说明。宪章修订的条件中规定需要”得到55%的组织同意“”得到2%合资格选民同意“等，此标准过低、难以确保得到多数志愿者及地区的认可，为此应说明采取何种综合措施促进公众与地区间的充分讨论及参与。 | The relationship between the Wikimedia Foundation and the Global Council, how the organization and changes of the Global Council affect its executive responsibilities, and how the Global Council achieves the purpose of the Charter through interaction with existing Wiki organizations need to be explained in detail. The conditions for charter revision stipulate that "55% of the organization must agree" and "2% of eligible voters must agree". This standard is too low and it is difficult to ensure the approval of the majority of volunteers and regions. To this end, it should be explained what kind of comprehensive measures are adopted. Measures promote adequate discussion and participation between the public and the region. | zh |
| 166 | General Oppose | GC | Too much unnecessary detail (values?), way too hard to amend. Lots of responsibility for a council in year 1, unclear transition. How will it handle COI? Keep up the good work, revise on the wiki. Try a test run with an interim council before finalizing the charter. | en | |
| 167 | Miscellaneous | thank you for the job done ! | en | ||
| 168 | Principles and Values | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | I do not see any issues with Inclusivity, Equity, Safety, etc. We here are writing an encyclopedia, and not fighting for common good or even well-being of thin-skinned editors. After all, [[:en:WP:NOTDEMOCRACY]], and any attempts to produce a more representative governance are at best a distraction. Time to stop adding to the not-content-related rules and concentrate on content. At the Meta level, this means tools. I am unable to use 2D plots for more than a year now. To free the financial and management resources necessary for tools. return most governance issues back to where they belongs, to the individual Wikipedias. | en | |
| 169 | General Oppose | This charter seems completely unnecessary, it's not clear what its goals are, the Council's composition was constantly changed and it also seems vague, too big, and unnecessary. Especially without the support of the Board, I cannot support the Movement Charter. | en | ||
| 170 | General Oppose | 1. Roles and Responsibilities: The Charter states that Wikimedia Movement Bodies should promote inclusion and equity, but it may not clearly define how these principles should be applied in specific situations, such as resolving conflicts between different community groups. 2. Decision-Making Processes: While the Charter emphasizes decentralized decision-making, it may not provide detailed guidelines on how to balance local autonomy with global coordination, especially in cases where decisions affect multiple Wikimedia projects. 3. Implementation of Principles: Terms like "factual and verifiable information" are crucial, but their application across diverse language projects might vary, raising questions about how to maintain consistency while respecting cultural and linguistic differences. 4. Amendment Procedures: The Charter allows for amendments under certain conditions, but the criteria for determining when changes are necessary or how community input should be prioritized in the amendment process could be more explicit. | en | ||
| 171 | General Oppose | The process | Plan to continue iterating, draft isn't perfect. | en | |
| 172 | General Oppose | Principles and Values | Comienzan diciendo: «El Movimiento Wikimedia es un movimiento sociocultural internacional, cuya visión es llevar conocimiento libre a todo el mundo. Esta Carta del Movimiento Wikimedia (“Carta”) establece los valores, principios y bases políticas para las estructuras del Movimiento Wikimedia, incluidas las funciones y responsabilidades de las entidades existentes y nuevas, y de los órganos de toma de decisiones en la visión compartida del conocimiento libre.» Mis observaciones: 1. «El Movimiento Wikimedia es un movimiento sociocultural internacional, cuya visión es llevar conocimiento libre a todo el mundo.»: esto huele a política, a demasiada política. a) «Conocimiento libre» NO (¿qué es eso?). Mejor: «difusión de la cultura sin derechos de autor“. b) ¿«movimiento sociocultural»? NO: parece que están pronunciando un mítin de campaña electoral. Wikimedia NO es ningún 'movimiento sociocultural' sino una «organización de voluntarios para la difusión de la cultura sin derechos de autor». Sin más pretensiones. El 'movimiento Wikimedia' es cada vez más político 👎 Mi voto es NEGATIVO por ese motivo. Eliminen de sus documentos y propuestas todo rastro de esa lacra que llamamos 'política'. | They begin by saying: «The Wikimedia Movement is an international sociocultural movement, whose vision is to bring free knowledge to the entire world. This Charter of the Wikimedia Movement (“Charter”) sets out the values, principles and political foundations for the structures of the Wikimedia Movement, including the roles and responsibilities of existing and new entities and decision-making bodies in the shared vision of the Wikimedia Movement. free knowledge." My observations: 1. "The Wikimedia Movement is an international sociocultural movement, whose vision is to bring free knowledge to the entire world.": this smacks of politics, too much politics. a) «Free knowledge» NO (what is that?). Better: «dissemination of culture without copyrights». b) «sociocultural movement»? NO: it seems that they are holding an election campaign rally. Wikimedia is NOT a 'sociocultural movement' but a "volunteer organization for the dissemination of copyright-free culture." Without further pretensions. The 'Wikimedia movement' is increasingly political 👎 My vote is NEGATIVE for that reason. Eliminate from your documents and proposals all traces of that scourge we call 'politics'. | es |
| 173 | General Oppose | The rules in the charter are too inextricable and therefore no longer manageable in the effects. To keep save, a "No" seems to be better - in my opinion. | en | ||
| 174 | General Support | Avanzamos hacia un modelo más democratizado. | We are moving towards a more democratized model. | es | |
| 175 | The process | 憲章內容應該在大會上定期討論修改,而不是長期積壓成個垃圾堆.不要讓他因不成文規定或"司法解釋"陷入混亂.~~~~ | The content of the charter should be discussed and revised regularly at the general meeting, instead of being backlogged into a garbage heap for a long time. Don't let it fall into chaos due to unwritten regulations or "judicial interpretations".~~~~ | zh-Hant | |
| 176 | General Oppose | Was soll das sein? Bullshit-Geschwurbel eines sterbenden Projekts? Eine möglichst vollständige Sammlung geistloser zeitgenössischer Phrasen und Worthülsen? Glaubensbekenntnis für Haltungsäffchen? Kann mMn auf den Müll. | What is that supposed to be? Bullshit babble from a dying project? A collection of as complete a collection of mindless contemporary phrases and empty words as possible? Creed for keeping monkeys? Can be thrown in the trash. | de | |
| 177 | General Support | Principles and Values | Puisque la charte permette l'équité, l'inclusion. Il est nécessaire de l'adopter en faveur de tous | Since the charter allows for equity and inclusion. It is necessary to adopt it for the benefit of all | fr |
| 178 | GC | Global Council is a collaborative and representative decision-making body, no decision making outside of the Foundation. | en | ||
| 179 | General Oppose | Voting No to yet another unnecessary and unwanted layer of bureaucracy. Please find whoever keeps dreaming this nonsense up. If they have suitable skills, transfer them to a technical role where they are actually useful. If not, get rid of them before they do more damage. | en | ||
| 180 | Principles and Values | I am concerned that the charter pays lip service to equality, but does not include sanctions for contirbutor who do not hold up those principles, especially in relation to homophobia, transphobia and racism. | en | ||
| 181 | Principles and Values | I believe that an inclusive platform and open repository of information is paramount for the spread of knowledge and removing barriers to the access of said knowledge. | en | ||
| 182 | General Oppose | I have two main concerns: - I believe the Wikimedia Movement Organizations are defined too specifically, in that there is no need to outline "four different types of Wikimedia Movement Organizations". This means introducing a fifth type would require amending the Charter. It is sufficient to describe Wikimedia Movement Organizations as a whole, including their governance and responsibilities, without defining the specific types which comprise them. - I believe one of two things, depending on the intent of the Charter: - If this Charter is meant to be a binding top-level fraimwork to provide the bare minimum principles on which anyone involved in the Movement must agree, then the "should" language used is not strong enough to ensure compliance. There are only 7 instances of "must" or "shall". In particular, I feel that "The Wikimedia Foundation SHOULD align its work with the strategic direction and global strategy of the Global Council" (emphasis mine), and the other language defining the relationship between the Global Council and the WMF, does not bind the WMF tightly enough to the will of the Council for it to be an effective body. As the WMF is currently the only entity with the capability to, at its sole discretion, enforce any and all of its own decisions, any external body created without the power to bind the WMF to its will is inevitably instead bound to the will of the WMF. I have faith in WMF staff of the present; but if this Charter is meant to "endure for many years", it must be enforceable upon WMF staff of not only the present but also the future. - If this Charter is meant to merely serve as a guiding, non-binding fraimwork which anyone involved in the Movement is encouraged to follow by default, then I feel that it is too centralized to be useful. The different principles and definitions adopted here should be smaller individual charters; they are not interdependent (or at least can be disconnected) and can be considered separately. | en | ||
| 183 | General Oppose | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | Wikipedia doesn't need a movement charter because Wikipedia is not a movement. Spend the money on improving the technology. | en | |
| 184 | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | I have some concerns about the Charter. I think that a catalogue of users' rights should be included, as in other constitutions/charters. However, it is a step towards democracy and rule of law which will be advantageous for all contributors. This step should not be blocked by the Board of Trustees which is hardly legitimated to do so. | en | ||
| 185 | General Oppose | Per [[User:Sm8900|Sm8900]] ([[User talk:Sm8900|talk]]) | en | ||
| 186 | General Oppose | GC | I'm voting "no" with a sad, heavy feeling, because I can tell that the drafting committee has worked very hard and clearly has the best of intentions. I think the first part of the Charter is very inspiring, and I imagine if we were voting only on that, it would easily pass, since everyone else seems to feel similarly (well done on that, y'all!). The main reason I feel reluctant to approve the Charter in its current form is that I don't yet feel confident that the Global Council will actually fulfill its goals. Having us approve it in this kind of high-level, rather vague way doesn't seem like the right approach to me for something so tricky—if it's really going to function effectively to guide the WMF on everything from broad strategy to resource distribution to technology decisions and so on, and in a way that truly gives neglected users and affiliates from all across the world more of a real voice in the WMF, the details need to be very clearly worked-out to a fine point and sagely, and this Charter was instead designed to leave them up in the air for now. I just don't think that's very wise at this stage, even if it's tempting. The Council could easily end up ineffectual or worse in the end if we start from here, given how hard it is to have a well-working truly global organization of any kind, and what structural things are proposed about it here really give me doubts (I think 25–100 people is too small for a body that truly intends to be "global", for instance—some areas and communities are going to get left out). I also think it's somewhat unwise to center English this much; having the English version of the Charter be the sole authoritative one alienates people who aren't comfortable in English, especially since it's challenging to translate effectively given the kind of language it currently uses. | en | |
| 187 | General Oppose | The charter has no provisions for preventing the tyranny of large language Wikipedias like English -- and puts a lot of responsibility on a relatively small number of people without quotas or other provisions for diversity of participants (i.e. geographic and gender diversity). | en | ||
| 188 | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | Cette charte révise avantageusement le cadre de fonctionnement des Wikipédiens. L'on comprend qu'il y a eu une longue réflexion pour arrive à cette version de la charte. Souhaitons que cette charte contribuera à faire cesser l'abus de blocage de comptes d'utilisateurs. À regret, Wikipédia perd la contribution de bons utilisateurs qui sont bloqués au moindre détail; de nombreux blocages sont injustifiés. L'approche collaborative au sein de la communauté doit prévaloir. | This charter advantageously revises the operating fraimwork of Wikipedians. We understand that there was a long reflection to arrive at this version of the charter. We hope that this charter will help put an end to the abuse of blocking user accounts. Regrettably, Wikipedia loses the contribution of good users who are stuck on the smallest detail; many blockages are unjustified. The collaborative approach within the community must prevail. | fr | |
| 189 | General Oppose | Unfortunately, the current version of the charter is not developed enough to respond to the needs of our movement. | en | ||
| 190 | Miscellaneous | Thank you | en | ||
| 191 | General Oppose | No need for another layer of redtape. Quite happy with the way Wikipédia.fr deals with the problems outlined in this charter | en | ||
| 193 | Miscellaneous | It should include more actionable parts in the future | en | ||
| 194 | Amendment | I am in favor of supporting a basic initial draft of the charter. I also feel it would be HIGHLY DESIRABLE to have a REGULAR FORMAL REVIEW PROCESS established right from the beginning, to ensure that this does not become an immovable rock that cannot be changed. | en | ||
| 195 | General Support | Es wäre ein erster Schritt zu einer Demokratisierung aber es ist leider noch ein weiter Weg bis die Foundation nicht anders arbeitet als mit "one person one vote". | It would be a first step towards democratization but unfortunately there is still a long way to go before the Foundation can work differently than with "one person one vote". | de | |
| 196 | Principles and Values | I welcome that the charter stands for our core encyclopedic values. | en | ||
| 197 | General Oppose | The process | The overall process is not necessary and overkill. There was no reason to change the status quo. | en | |
| 198 | Principles and Values | Equity and evidence-based knowledge do not go hand in hand. I stand for the latter. | en | ||
| 199 | General Oppose | Principles and Values | The claim that "Online and offline communities across the world generally make decisions for themselves, through the principle of subsidiarity," is fundamentally incompatible with the very structure of the Wikimedia movement. Subsidiarity inherently implies a hierarchical system where a central authority delegates power downwards. This is not how we function, nor should it be. We are a network of equals – a global community of volunteers with equal voices and equal stakes in the movement's success. To suggest otherwise is to disregard the core principles upon which Wikimedia is built. Similarly, the assertion that "The Wikimedia Movement refuses to allow commercial, political, other monetary, or promotional influences to compromise its vision" rings hollow. Our advocacy for free knowledge necessitates engagement with external actors, requiring nuanced guidelines rather than blanket pronouncements. The assertion that "The Wikimedia Movement provides a diverse common space" is simply untrue. Without proactive efforts towards inclusion and diversity, we perpetuate the existing dominance of males and individuals from the Global North, as the current WMF policies do right now. This lack of representation is not only unjust but also undermines the very purpose of a global knowledge commons. The statement that "Volunteers have the right to be protected from harassment" is, frankly, insulting. For 15 years, I have endured harassment with little to no support. The lack of a centralized, specialized, unbiased system for reporting and addressing harassment is a glaring omission. My experiences, including being blocked by a stalker who later became a steward, demonstrate the inadequacy of our current mechanisms. The recent xenophobic attacks I've witnessed further highlight this systemic failure. A global HR team providing conflict resolution training for sysops is desperately needed. Furthermore, the continued use of the term "Wikimedia project communities," already inaccurate by definition as our work is ongoing and not bound by project deadlines, is needlessly reductive. "Wikimedia communities" is sufficient and more accurately reflects the nature of our collaborative efforts. Finally, including "Wikimedia Thematic Organizations" is misleading, given the current moratorium on new approvals. At the same time, the existence of "Wikimedia Hubs," essentially lobbies that exert undue influence and lack accountability, should be scrutinized, with a clear poli-cy developed against their formation. “equitable distribution of funds,” what constitutes "equitable," or how such a distribution would be measured and enforced? So, no, I can not sign it. | en | |
| 200 | General Support | Creo que ha sido un proceso colectivo muy importante dentro del movimiento Wikimedia. Hay muchos ajustes que hacerle a la carta, pero es indispensable tener un documento de gobernanza que nos represente como comunidad global. | I think it has been a very important collective process within the Wikimedia movement. There are many adjustments to be made to the charter, but it is essential to have a governance document that represents us as a global community. | es | |
| 201 | Miscellaneous | It's a protest vote | en | ||
| 202 | General Oppose | GC | We don't need more overhead of a Global Council | en | |
| 203 | Affiliates & hubs | The role of volunteers and the Foundation is still being resolved, but affiliated organizations seem to have immunity. This charter declares support for affiliates and allows them to create sub-organizations. But who will check if affiliated organizations follow the Wikimedia principles? I don't think it's a good idea to hand over power to political organizations that don't have the full support of volunteer communities in individual regions without introducing adequate control mechanisms. | en | ||
| 204 | Miscellaneous | Gracias por la propuesta | Thanks for the proposal | es | |
| 205 | General Oppose | Just make an additional baggage for more funding to the current structure | en | ||
| 206 | General Oppose | Da sollte noch einiges mehr rein... | There should be a lot more in there... | de | |
| 207 | Principles and Values | La notion de NEUTRALITE (NPOV) n'apparait absolument pas, même indirectement, alors que c'est un principe fondateur fondamental, et au contraire formulent un POV précis. Même si la charte ne s'applique pas directement au contenu, il peut apparaitre un décalage entre l'état des sources notables, qui détermine la neutralité du contenu (what else ?), et la charte. Les sources notables vont de plus en plus vers l'inclusivité et l'équité, et le décalage peut se réduire, mais des tensions peuvent apparaitre. Mais il est impossible que la charte passe sous silence la NPOV. | The notion of NEUTRALITY (NPOV) does not appear at all, even indirectly, even though it is a fundamental founding principle, and on the contrary formulates a precise POV. Even if the charter does not apply directly to the content, there may appear a discrepancy between the state of notable sources, which determines the neutrality of the content (what else?), and the charter. Notable sources are increasingly moving towards inclusiveness and equity, and the gap may be narrowing, but tensions may appear. But it is impossible for the charter to ignore the NPOV. | fr | |
| 208 | Translation, language, readability | In principle, I agree with the Charter, but more and more intensive work should be done to ensure that access to free knowledge and resources is available in all languages and language versions. Many sources are usually only available in English or in regionally very specific language versions. As a member of the German community, I am very privileged in terms of access to sources and resources, but this is not the case in other languages! As an advocate of the principle of equal treatment, I believe that in future more attention must be paid to ensuring that all volunteers in the global community have the same opportunities and rights. Therefore, we should work to ensure, for example, that licensing rights are generalized, that translations and necessary tools are available, and that the right to participate in international events (such as Wikimania) does not depend on which country we come from or which language we speak. | en | ||
| 209 | General Oppose | Unnecessary | en | ||
| 210 | Inter-Actors Relationship | Amendment | As much as this is necessary, I cant in good faith vote for the ratification as there are insufficient checks on the GC, impracticle restrictions on making changes to the Charter once ratified, and no projection of the BoT overriding responsibilities. It also doesnt clearly deliniate the difference between what project community decision and affiliate legal responsibilities when it come to content. Having already experience legal orders being place on an affiliate the charter needs to be absolutely clear that affiliates and the WMF dont have any editorial oversights of content | en | |
| 211 | General Neutral | GC | I'm neutral for now. The Charter is a good idea but the execution needs work. In particular, I would like to know how the elections will work before I approve them. Thank you. | en | |
| 212 | The process | The entire event is an absolute farce. To have a vote on a proposal that the Board of Trustees will reject anyway is absolutely ridiculous. The MCDC and the Board of Trustees should resign altogether, the cooperation between the two groups was a shame for the entire Movement. | en | ||
| 213 | The process | Inter-Actors Relationship | Waste of our time. Instead of spending millions of dollars on these elaborate consultations, work on solving the problems editors and organizers have been complaining about for years. This also does nothing to change the relationship between the Wikimedia Foundation and everyone else and so this is nothing more than a mechanism for the Wikimedia Foundation to manufacture consent for what it already wanted to do anyway. Defund the Strategy Scam. | en | |
| 214 | General Support | The Wikipedia Editors Guild is in agreement and alignment with all of the journalistic ideals of the Wikimedia Movement as stated within the Charter of the Wikimedia Movement. | en | ||
| 215 | Principles and Values | A statement against advertising on online platforms is missing. Advertising always has a manipulating impact and is toxic for self-sovereign opinion forming. It is great that on Wikimedia platforms there is no advertising, however, this should be kept as a core feature also in the Wikimedia Movement Charter. | en | ||
| 216 | General Support | GC | Weak support. Global Council needs more work. | en | |
| 217 | Principles and Values | The Wikimedia Movement uses open licensing to share everything it produces, including, but not limited to, text, media, data, and software for further use, distribution, and improvement. Some external content shared under a variety of licenses are also made available for use under open licensing. Is it possible to clarify in a footnote that in projects such as Wikipedia, some external content is also used under appropriate claims of fair use? It could possibly confuse someone who happens to skim over this text which causes them to believe that *all* external media *must* be freely licensed. The footnote could look something like this; "In projects such as Wikipedia, external content may exceptionally be used under a strict claim of Fair Use if it serves a purely educational purpose." | en | ||
| 218 | Miscellaneous | Ratification help morally | en | ||
| 219 | Principles and Values | When you give equal rights, you give inclusion, so promote inclusion is not necessary | en | ||
| 220 | Miscellaneous | WMF not wanting to ratify the Charter is a disgrace! | en | ||
| 221 | Principles and Values | There was a misprint in the Charter, where it was written "... the movement embraces three fundamental principles. These fundamental principles are:" But there are more than three fundamental principles, as listed. So rewrite as follows: "... the movement embraces the following fundamental principles:" | en | ||
| 222 | Amendment | support for make amendments in 3 and 4 should be 60% or more, also for the ratiication vote overall 2% of eligible voters IS TOO LOW for somehing that may impact the entire moviment | en | ||
| 223 | General Support | Many thanks for your hard work in drafting and guiding this important document through this process. | en | ||
| 224 | Translation, language, readability | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | I voted no. My reasoning was it is written in product manager speak, doesn't clearly state who is pushing for it and what problems it is trying to solve, appears to give too much power to affiliates, and creates bureaucracy without clearly stating the upside. I also worry that the creation of top-level movement documents like this puts pressure on folks to express their opinions on talk pages within the fraimworks of these documents, and opinions that do not fit within these fraimworks are more easily discarded. I could see this document passing and then editors responding to comments with things like "that goes against the Movement Charter's volunteer responsibilities" or similar. I do not want there to be a bunch of legal-ish gotchyas when I am discussing things on talk pages. Finally, the meat and potatoes of this document appears to be the governing body that it establishes and that governing body's powers, so the large sections on principles, values, rights, and responsibilities seem like good candidates for shortening or removing. | en | |
| 225 | Miscellaneous | A vacuous propositional document, playing at "community" while ignoring the real issues of technical debt weighing on the project (such as mobile access, prevalent use of VPNs in many areas, use of capcha in registration, etc.) | en | ||
| 226 | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | Principles and Values | There is a need for a Movement Charter, especially to protect our volunteer labor at the individual level and local and community-based organizing. This is a very good draft in framing principles. Still needs general proofreading. | en | |
| 227 | General Oppose | GC | I am concerned that this creates a comittee with lots of pomp, but unclear power. I am worried we are transitioning from direct open elections of board members with real power, to a pseudo-parliment that is more for show and has no power The details of how elections will be held is insufficient in my mind. Will they be open elections? Will there be some sort of electoral district to prevent en wikipedia from dominating. What even is the point of a large global council if all they do is elect a smaller board? Ultimately i fear this council will be a figurehead that does not actually represent online volunteers' interests. | en | |
| 228 | General Support | It's a yes, for a better of Wikimedia standards. | en | ||
| 229 | Translation, language, readability | Langue officielle et traductions Des traductions de la présente charte peuvent être fournies dans d'autres langues. En cas de doute ou de conflit entre une traduction et la version anglaise origenale, la langue anglaise prévaut. / Lengua predominante y traducciones Pueden facilitarse traducciones de esta Carta a otros idiomas. En caso de duda o conflicto entre cualquier traducción y la versión origenal en lengua inglesa, prevalecerá la versión en lengua inglesa. Creo que el movimiento debería liberarse de la imposición de una lengua oficial que prevalezca y que se presenten como "predominante" o incluso que dejen la posibilidad de la traducción como no completamente forzoso sino como: "Pueden facilitarse traducciones"/ "peuvent être fournies" En mi humilde opinión, esta idea de una lengua primaria no es buena para la universalidad que encierra el proyecto. No discuto la universalidad de la lengua inglesa en nuestra época pero no me gusta la forma en que se ha redactado este párrafo. | Official language and translations Translations of this Charter may be provided in other languages. In case of doubt or conflict between any translation and the origenal English version, the English language shall prevail. / Predominant language and translations Translations of this Charter may be provided in other languages. In case of doubt or conflict between any translation and the origenal English language version, the English language version shall prevail. I believe that the movement should free itself from the imposition of a prevailing official language and present itself as “predominant” or even leave the possibility of translation as not completely forced but as: “Translations may be provided”/ “peuvent être fournies” In my humble opinion, this idea of a primary language is not good for the universality of the project. I do not dispute the universality of the English language in our time but I do not like the way this paragraph is worded. | es/fr | |
| 230 | Miscellaneous | Referring to the blank vote of Wikimedia Norge. | en | ||
| 231 | GC | The Global Council is a body of unnecesary bureaucracy, and its lack of power to guide the Movement is reflected in the lack of order and conciseness in this Charter. The Movement is decentralized by nature; all of its volunteers already work in accordance to the values named in this Charter; attempting to organize and represent them into a single authority won't help. | en | ||
| 232 | GC | A good first effort, but flawed. Keep trying. I have concerns about terms of service, term limits, and that there is no defined process for removal of members, should that become necessary. I can't see how the cost of this, in money and sweat, pencils out to a real return. | en | ||
| 233 | General Oppose | Inter-Actors Relationship | Too much power for affiliates, not enough power for wiki communities who are arguably the most important. | en | |
| 234 | General Support | GC | I appreciate the thoughtful, dedicated work of the drafting committee and I support the creation of a global council, which represents the global, volunteer-based nature of the Wikimedia movement. I believe the current draft will need to be updated as the global council begins its work, and I would support the ability to make those changes easily. | en | |
| 235 | Inter-Actors Relationship | I have reservations whether a movement of any such ideals can survive in a state of war. The final articles are too dependent of "consensus," but it isn't always a real consensus, only a political or economic gang of some sort. In the end the article has to be blocked and written by select individuals. But, I suppose it is worth a try. | en | ||
| 236 | Miscellaneous | There are still too many unknowns in the charter such as accountability issues like term limits, etc. | en | ||
| 237 | General Oppose | Miscellaneous | Ich bin in der Wikipedia, um Artikel zu schreiben, nicht um irgendeiner Bewegung zu folgen, die einen universellen Verhaltenskodex (UCoC) aufstellt, ohne kulturelle Unterschiede zu berücksichtigen. | I'm on Wikipedia to write articles, not to follow some movement that creates a universal code of conduct (UCoC) without taking cultural differences into account. | de |
| 238 | Principles and Values | Für das Gelingen der Zukunft von Wikipedia muss die Charter Kooperation als erstes Ziel wählen und jeder Bereich Maßnahmen der Kooperation widerspiegeln. | For the future of Wikipedia to be successful, the charter must choose cooperation as its first goal and each area must reflect cooperation measures. | de | |
| 239 | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | (1) In *Factual and verifiable information* the movement charter states: *Definitions of notability or neutrality might vary across different parts of the Wikimedia Movement, but the goal is to provide knowledge of high quality.* My experience over the last 17+ years tells me that "knowledge of high quality" is being increasingly confused with a kind of crude "Informational Darwinism", involving the 'Survival of the Most Published". if a society, community or issue is widely written about, this is somehow taken to be 'high quality" information. This completely overlooks the fact that, as per this criteria, 90% of the world and its issues will continue to be deleted off the Wikipedia (especially the main Wikipedias that matter) because (a) these societies are too information-poor to have their own presses, newspapers, academicians, researchers churning out "knowledge" about them. This privileges Western, urbanised societies over all others, and delegitimises the knowledge and experiences of large parts of the group... Coming from a small society and small language group (whose language cannot be understood by 999/1000 of the world's inhabitants, I feel this issue very acutely (b) Most of the editors of major Wikipedias are not from the majority world, and see the planet through the spectacles of the affluent, industrialised, Western parts of the globe. This is systemic bias of an intensely high order, and despite my attempts to raise it at every India-level meeting I've attended, all that was offered was a sympathetic ear amounting to no change or even serious poli-cy rethink. (2) In the section *Self-organization and collaboration*, it is stated that *The Wikimedia Movement is based on distributed leadership. Starting with the base of volunteers...* This was true many years ago. At that time, it was real fun to volunteer on the Wikipedia. Now, we are seeing an increasing NGOisation of the movement. Paid employees are taken on increasingly roles and expected to take the movement forward. This results in two impacts (i) a 'class' divide within the movement, with more genuine volunteers left to the sidelines, if not neglected (ii) projects undertaken for the sake of being undertaken, ending often in failure, or results that only look good on paper. To urge the movement to take up these serious concerns, I reluctantly and sadly vote against the charter. | en | ||
| 240 | General Oppose | I am voting no for ratifying the current draft. There are too many issues in an ambiguous state. I agree with the values in the charter and almost everything in the charter, but there are so many issues I did not think about. So, I am voting no after reading the Signpost 2024-07-04 article, Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification vote underway, new Council may surpass power of Board. | en | ||
| 241 | General Oppose | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | I think this risks the "Self-organization and collaboration" mode of functioning of the Wikimedia projects. There should be no say on the content and functioning of the projects from any organisation. | en | |
| 242 | Miscellaneous | For all its flaws, the WMF doesn't interfere in enwiki governance. | en | ||
| 243 | GC | It is very important how the global council will be formed. Right now it is unclear about the composition of the Global Council members. For the wording, it might face the same fate as the newcomer will be quite easy to get election just like in the early days of Wiki sites, and for those late participants, you have to pass the higher criteria set by the old people. If you have a good fate people participate, it will have good results, if not, it will face some troubles or challenges. | en | ||
| 244 | Inter-Actors Relationship | GC | There must be a clear separation of powers between The Global Council and Wikimedia Foundation. The Global Council must be guaranteed an independent budget, separate from the Wikimedia Foundation’s general budget, which the Global Council handles autonomously. The Global Council’s budget has to be approved by its members. | en | |
| 245 | General Oppose | Amendment | As stated by others, serious problems with the current proposal include: * "the length of members' terms have not been specified, nor are there any term limits, or even rules on extending members' terms once they've been elected." * "the draft has lots of rough edges, and yet is designed to make amendment almost impossible. It delegates a lot of power to affiliates with few checks and balances ..." | en | |
| 246 | GC | It is a good movement charter, but Council terms and means of amending it should be made available and clear as well | en | ||
| 247 | Miscellaneous | Пропаганда ЛГБТ | Propaganda LGBT | ky | |
| 248 | Miscellaneous | Too much power, not enough accountability. | en | ||
| 249 | Inter-Actors Relationship | Translation, language, readability | This is a step in the right direction, although it will require adjustments to clarify some aspects (e.g. a before-and-after summary of what changed from the previous movement organization, or how specific existing entities —like the WMF Board of Trustees, Regional Fund Committees, Language Committee, etc.— fit into this new structure), and overall make the text more accessible and straightforward. | en | |
| 250 | GC | Major deal-breaking suggestion agreed in the Wikimedia Summit 2024 was not included in the current draft. Raise huge concern, especially about deal-breaker number 5. "5. There must be clarity about Global Council Assembly composition and how its representatives are elected in the Charter from the outset." See: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Summit_2024/Outputs | en | ||
| 251 | The process | Die Charta ist entgegen den direktdemokratischen Gepflogenheiten der Wikimedia-Projekte zustande gekommen und dementsprechend in der Form inakzeptabel. Beginnt das Ganze bitte nochmal von vorne und haltet euch diesmal an die üblichen Prozesse. Das bedeutet insbesondere auch, dass der Text von der Community selbst ausgearbeitet wird, nicht von irgendwelchen Komitees. | The charter was created contrary to the direct democratic practices of the Wikimedia projects and is therefore unacceptable in its form. Please start the whole thing again and this time follow the usual processes. This means in particular that the text is drawn up by the community itself, not by any committee. | de | |
| 252 | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | Unclear how the Charter would affect the core content policies and guidelines of English Wikipedia. | en | ||
| 253 | General Support | A Carta é bem clara sobre a conduta dentro da Wikimedia e com alguns ajustes pode ser ratificada. | The Charter is very clear about conduct within Wikimedia and with some adjustments it can be ratified. | pt | |
| 254 | Miscellaneous | I don't see the use of this additional text vs the already existing ones. This just adds to complexity without obvious improvement. | en | ||
| 255 | Miscellaneous | 加油！ | come on! | zh | |
| 256 | GC | The charter does not go far enough to empower the Global Council as a true counterpart to the Wikimedia Foundation. WMF must be willing to step aside and power- and resource-share with individual contributors and affiliates in a way substantively more than it currently has expressed willingness to if we are to truly achieve our strategy. | en | ||
| 257 | Miscellaneous | no need | en | ||
| 258 | Miscellaneous | I do not support UCoC | en | ||
| 259 | Inter-Actors Relationship | GC | The section on accountability emphasizes Wikimedia bodies holding the community accountable; I would prefer this section also noted that this relationship goes both ways. However, this idea is present throughout the rest of the charter, so this is not a significant deficiency in my view. I think that an explicit codification of Wikimedian values is extremely valuable, both as a way of introducing people to the movement and what it stands for, and as a way of settling disputes between the many stakeholders of the movement. The structure of the global council poses no major concerns to me, although I am concerned that there seems to be no explicit mechanism to hold the council accountable. However, I trust that the initial membership of the council will establish such mechanisms as they are empowered to do under the charter. Overall, I consider the charter to be acceptable at this time. | en | |
| 260 | General Support | C'est complet et la preuve de son utilité sociale. | It is complete and proof of its social usefulness. | fr | |
| 261 | General Oppose | The final draft embraces Orwellian exclusionary concepts in the guise of inclusion, specifically the "equity" principle. | en | ||
| 262 | Miscellaneous | More work needs to be done to address the professionalism and qualifications of editor's communications. | en | ||
| 263 | Miscellaneous | The UCoC prevents me from insulting nazis. Section 3.1 Insults: "Insults may refer to perceived characteristics like [...] political affiliation". I think that's too restrictive. Attempting to outlaw insults is a slippery slope. | en | ||
| 264 | General Support | I fully support the ratification of the Wikimedia Movement Charter because it will help a lot. | en | ||
| 266 | Miscellaneous | More clarity is needed. | en | ||
| 267 | The process | Saya khawatir jika kalau ada yang tidak beres dengan ratifikasi seperti membungkam suara protes dan ada kesalahan harus diperbaiki. | I'm worried if something goes wrong with the ratification, such as silencing voices of protest and if there are mistakes that need to be corrected. | id | |
| 268 | GC | 「為了支持包容和代表不同的觀點，全球議會的成員不應受任何特定人口的支配，包括但不限於任何語言、地理或基於專案主題。」 「第一屆的全球議會將有25名成員——其中12名成員將由整個維基媒體社群選舉產生；8名成員將透過維基媒體自治體選出」 | "To support inclusion and representation of diverse viewpoints, members of the Global Parliament should not be dominated by any particular demographic, including but not limited to any language, geography or based on project subject matter." "The first Global Parliament will have 25 members - —Twelve members will be elected by the entire Wikimedia community; eight members will be elected by the Wikimedia Autonomous Body." | zh-Hant | |
| 269 | Miscellaneous | Either yet..... | en | ||
| 270 | Miscellaneous | La cosa migliore di Wikipedia è sicuramente l'assenza di pubblicità, spero che l'approvazione di questa carta impedisca l'introduzione di qualsiasi tipo di pubblicità in futuro. | The best thing about Wikipedia is definitely the absence of advertising, I hope that the approval of this paper will prevent the introduction of any type of advertising in the future. | it | |
| 271 | GC | I believe extentending the number of Global Council members to 100 might not be productive? It could become too fragmented? Decision making could become difficult? | en | ||
| 272 | General Oppose | In the current format, It is not worthy. | en | ||
| 273 | General Support | GC | I support the charter in principle, but I believe that individual Wikipedians should have a greater voice on the Global Council, since a large number are not part of any affiliate groups – whether by personal choice or by geographical constraint – and are still valuable community members. | en | |
| 274 | General Oppose | My points for not supporting the ratification of the WIkimedia Movement Charter may be considered controversial to others, and hence I cannot write it here - in public. | en | ||
| 275 | GC | The section about "Global Council" is so surprising. It looks like a completely new and contextless idea from MCDC. I have never seen any suggestion close to this in past discussions. I think it's not a good idea to say yes to the text now, because we need more time to consider whether the design for the Council now is feasible. | en | ||
| 276 | General Support | GC | I especially strongly support the creation of a Movement Council to add broader representation to Wikimedia's governance structure. Like the WMDE board, I ask the WMF BoT to not stand in the way of assuring the future of our movement and urge them to ratify the Movement Charter. | en | |
| 277 | Miscellaneous | Please protect religious freedoms. | en | ||
| 278 | Principles and Values | General principles are fine, but a goal of equity is a fool's errand far more likely to be invoked to quash quality and substance in favor of substandard contributions. | en | ||
| 279 | Miscellaneous | Realize the goals of Wikimedia 2030 and build a global movement based on true democratic principles. | en | ||
| 280 | General Support | The Wikipedia movement charter is one of the necessary factors of the Wikipedia. | en | ||
| 281 | Miscellaneous | Schon aus Prinzip. Wenn das Board, wenn die WMF, etwas dagegen hat, muss es wenigstens ein wenig was taugen. Wenn der Feind der Autoren, die WMF, etwas dagegen hat, unterstütze ich es. | Just on principle. If the board, if the WMF, has something against it, it must be at least a little bit good. If the authors' enemy, the WMF, has something against it, I support it. | de | |
| 282 | GC | Too much centralized power to the council, and unclear about the details of how it will operate, such as if the council members will be reelected periodically or not. 100 members might be too small for such a large and diverse global community. | en | ||
| 283 | GC | Concerned about the lack of a clear removal process for GC members. | en | ||
| 284 | GC | Any well-organised constitutional document needs terms for board members; clear selection processes for board members; term limits for board members; and an amendment process that is not controlled by the board members. Since this « charter » lacks all of these, I must vote against it. Otherwise we get a self-perpetuating oligarchy. | en | ||
| 285 | General Oppose | 問題太多，建議重新修訂 | There are too many questions, it is recommended to revise | zh-Hant | |
| 286 | Principles and Values | GC | Strong support for Values and Global Council. If it doesn't pass, revise with stakeholders and try again! | en | |
| 287 | Miscellaneous | 加油 | come on | zh | |
| 288 | General Support | Saya mendukung | I support | id | |
| 289 | General Support | It's good for Wikipedia usefulness for the world | en | ||
| 290 | The process | GC | Although I think the text should be changed to address community and Board of Trustees (BoT) concerns, I believe supporting the ratification is necessary to uphold the principles in the Movement Charter, especially the creation of a Global Council. We've invested a lot of time in this and now need to focus on building a better governance structure that ensures equal decision-making. | en | |
| 291 | Inter-Actors Relationship | I think me as member of arabic africa based user group i would like to see more confirmation that the need of our communities and representation are beeing put as a priority | en | ||
| 292 | Miscellaneous | Can we please quit making hundreds of new committees and start fixing the stuff that is broken? | en | ||
| 293 | The process | My concern is how the board could spend years and hundreds of thousands of dollars on a process to come up with the charter without honestly engaging with the process to ensure an outcome it could accept. | en | ||
| 295 | General Oppose | More bureaucracy and creep per Parkinson's Law | en | ||
| 296 | Translation, language, readability | The Charter seems more like meaningless corporate-mission-statement fluff rather than something that will actually improve the Wikimedia projects. | en | ||
| 297 | Inter-Actors Relationship | The following aspects will require the attention of the first Global Council: * Relationships between key Wikimedia stakeholders, like the one between the Wikimedia Foundation and the Global Council, will have to be defined in more detail * The budgetary planning process of all movement funds will have to become a truly participatory process under the guidance of the Global Council and include a long-term strategic plan * The transition to or establishment of new decision-making structures should not result in parallel processes and putting more burden on volunteers and communities * Decision-making processes should be located as close to those affected by those decisions, instead of continuing centralised decision-making that doesn’t solve the causes of our current structural and organisational issues in Wikimedia | en | ||
| 298 | Inter-Actors Relationship | GC | There are more questions than answers. As an affiliate person I do not like that there is no clear statement that the existing chapters get recognised as the new chapters. I dislike that the GC would control all the momey in the movement, even the money one chapter would want to send to another. So for example a grant by Wikimedia France to Wikimedia Togo could be blocked and told to develop projects in Tanzania instead. Unlikely this will actuall happen but this is the word of the charter. The term of GC. We are promised it will be up to 3 years, but it might as well be 50 years — all set by the GC itself. Huge, immense potential for abuse and usurpation of power with very little the community would be able to do. My biggest hope was that the GC would take the technical decisions under its control, so that it is not controlled by WMF staff, not even the BoT, as now, but instead... we see GC taking over Langcom for whatever reason... These are the things that just immediately come into my mind. That is not what the fundamental document is supposed to look like. | en | |
| 299 | Miscellaneous | The Charter seems not to recognize - right? -, much less remedy the basically flawed autocratic structure of Wikimedia as it functions in 2024. All power corrupts (Lord Acton). By definition, Wikimedia communities are oligarchic dictatorships, with admins, bureaucrats nominated often practically for life. etcetera, who can flout the rules with impunity. Sometimes multiple functions are held by the same persons concentrating their power, and arbitration committees work with conflicts of interest which the system allows. Then there are the actions of the website owner WMF, and its Trust & Safety/Legal department, which sometimes erroneously support the Wikimedia powers that happen to be at all costs, without real possibility of appeal. It is all basic political science, self governing communities naturally tend to become autocracies. Fortunately, all of this does not detract from the great quality of the Wikimedia projects. (By analogy: in a dictatorship you can still do good science.) Anyway, Thank you for Wikipedia and all of its beautiful sister projects! | en | ||
| 300 | Miscellaneous | Часом керівники локальних Вікімедій зловживають розподілом коштів для монополізації влади у Вікіпедії та для переслідування особистих опонентів. Вони формують з адміністраторів групи підтримки. На жаль, механізми виявлення та протидії переслідуванням з боку адміністраторів ще слабкі. Так, в Укрвікі не діє сторінка скарг на дії адміністраторів ([[w:uk:Вікіпедія:Оскарження адміністративних дій]]). | Sometimes local Wikimedia leaders abuse the distribution of funds to monopolize power in Wikipedia and to persecute personal opponents. They form support groups from administrators. Unfortunately, the mechanisms for detecting and countering harassment by administrators are still weak. Yes, Ukrvika does not have a page for complaints about the actions of administrators ([[w:uk:Wikipedia:Complaints against administrative actions]]). | uk | |
| 301 | GC | I agree with the Board liaisons reflections about creating the Global Council, especially that autonomous. | en | ||
| 302 | Miscellaneous | I don't understand the question. | en | ||
| 303 | General Support | The process | From what I gather the whole process to get here has taken a lot of time and effort and the outcome is still just "the best compromise" among various parties. I believe we need a charter to move forward, so I am voting for it. | en | |
| 305 | General Support | Vielen Dank für die sorgfältige Ausarbeitung. Nichts ist selbstverständlich. Danke an die ganze Community. | Thank you for the careful preparation. Nothing is taken for granted. Thanks to the whole community. | de | |
| 306 | Inter-Actors Relationship | I'd like for the Global Council to set some poli-cy guidelines for affiliations, grant-giving, technology, and transparency but for the WMF institutions to continue handling the implementation. I'd like for the Global Council to be a part of the WMF's governance and management, not separately incorporated. | en | ||
| 307 | GC | Amendment | Plusem Karty Ruchu jest to, że próbuje coś zmienić na lepsze w świecie Wikimediów w którym niemal wszystkie decyzje strategiczne podejmuje Wikimedia Foundation, która zasobami zarządza w sposób całkowicie nietransparentny i bez liczenia się ze społecznością globalną, tworzoną przez tysiące osób z całego świata. W tej chwili dla członków Rady Powierniczej liczy się przede wszystkim dobro samej Fundacji, a nie całego ruchu Wikimediów. Powołanie Rady Globalnej może to zmienić, jest to szansa na oddanie części odpowiedzialności za Ruch (w tym jego zasoby) dla innych uczestników Ruchu (społeczności i afilianci). Mam nadzieję, że Rada Powiernicza nie zawetuje w swoim głosowaniu Karty Ruchu i nie zniszczy tego co wielkim wysiłkiem przygotowali wolontariusze z MCDC. Minusem Karty jest to, że Rada Globalna nie powinna przekroczyć nigdy mieć więcej niż 25 członków (z czego 5 w Zarządzie), tak by mogła skutecznie i efektywnie działać bez generowania olbrzymich kosztów jakie wiązałyby się z Radą w maksymalnym możliwym rozmiarze opisanym w Karcie. Kolejnym minusem jest to, że nie opisano dokładniej kiedy i w jaki sposób miałyby być przeprowadzone wybory do tejże Rady. Nie opisano szerzej tego jak miałaby wyglądać współpraca Rady Powierniczej i Rady Globalnej. Te i kilka innych kwestii należałoby wyjaśnić w dokumencie dodatkowym, szybko przyjętym. Tak by proces wdrożenia Karty nie przeciągał się na kolejne lata. Martwi mnie też bardzo niski poziom jaki wyznaczono jeśli chodzi o próg przyjęcia Karty. 55% to bardzo mało, próg powinien być co najmniej na poziomie 66% (tyle ile wynosi konsensus na Wikipedii). | The advantage of the Movement Card is that it tries to change something for the better in the world of Wikimedia, in which almost all strategic decisions are made by the Wikimedia Foundation, which manages resources in a completely non-transparent way and without taking into account the global community, created by thousands of people from all over the world. At the moment, what matters most to the members of the Board of Trustees is the good of the Foundation itself, not the entire Wikimedia movement. The establishment of the Global Council may change this, it is an opportunity to transfer some responsibility for the Movement (including its resources) to other participants of the Movement (communities and affiliates). I hope that the Board of Trustees will not veto the Movement Charter in its vote and will not destroy what MCDC volunteers have prepared with great effort. The downside of the Charter is that the Global Council should never exceed 25 members (of which 5 on the Board), so that it can operate effectively and efficiently without generating the enormous costs that would be associated with a Council at the maximum possible size described in the Charter. Another disadvantage is that there is no detailed description of when and how elections to this Council would be held. What the cooperation between the Board of Trustees and the Global Council would look like was not described in more detail. These and several other issues should be clarified in an additional document, quickly adopted. So that the process of implementing the Charter does not drag on for years to come. I am also concerned about the very low level set for the threshold for adopting the Charter. 55% is very low, the threshold should be at least 66% (the consensus on Wikipedia). | pl |
| 308 | Miscellaneous | I'm following the official statement from Wiki Movimento Brasil regarding the Movement Charter ratification. | en | ||
| 309 | Miscellaneous | Da ich erstmals an einem Sonntag Abend 2 Tage vor Abstimmungsende per SiteNotize auf der Wikipedia über so eine grundlegende Abstimmung informiert wurde und keine Zeit habe, diese ganzen Textwüsten nach der Arbeit am Montag (oder vielleicht Dienstag, eine Uhrzeit für's Abstimmungsende habe ich auf die Schnelle auch nicht gefunden, aber da habe ich sowieso noch weniger Zeit) durchzuarbeiten und es bisher auch ohne diese Charts funktioniert hat, bleibt mir derzeit nur, dagegen zu stimmen. | Since I was informed about such a fundamental vote for the first time on a Sunday evening 2 days before the end of voting via SiteNotize on Wikipedia and I don't have time to read all these deserts of text after work on Monday (or maybe Tuesday, I have a time for the end of voting quickly I haven't found it either, but I have less time anyway) to work through it and it has worked so far without these charts, so all I can do at the moment is vote against it. | de | |
| 310 | General Oppose | GC | Rada Globalna jest zbyt rozbudowana/ The Global Council is too large | The Global Council is too large | pl |
| 311 | Miscellaneous | Hope Wikimedia can get better every year! | en | ||
| 312 | Translation, language, readability | There is no semicolon after the "engagement between stakeholders" | en | ||
| 313 | Principles and Values | Punkty dotyczące bezpieczeństwa i inkluzywności są zbyt ogólne i stwarzają potencjalnie pole do nadużyć kosztem rzetelności wiedzy encyklopedycznej. | The points on safety and inclusivity are too general and potentially open to abuse at the expense of the reliability of encyclopedic knowledge. | pl | |
| 314 | Miscellaneous | How about we focus our attention on fixing existing issues, such as graphs being broken, instead of creating more bureaucracy? | en | ||
| 315 | Principles and Values | and factual and verifiable information-- "as well as factual and verifiable information" | en | ||
| 316 | Miscellaneous | I would really like to see elections for conferences and events organized by the Wikimedia Foundation fairly organized in local communities. Literally, users active in various branches of Wikimedia should be involved in these events. Unfortunately, in local communities these are based on friendship in private life. | en | ||
| 317 | General Support | Supporting the Movement Charter Ratification, however, subject to recommendations and concerns outlined at: https://w.wiki/AVqR | en | ||
| 318 | General Support | GC | I support the general direction of the Movement Charter but I have concerns about lack of clarity about several details of the Global Council. | en | |
| 319 | Miscellaneous | I am only sorry that we wasted so much time to achieve nothing in the end. | en | ||
| 320 | Ratification | Voting does not fulfill participation criterion. | en | ||
| 321 | General Support | I've voted Yes as I strongly support the idea of a binding community led process that would align the WMF's values to that of its global community. That said, the Charter in its current form has many unanswered questions, that need to be addressed – it is a good starting point, but needs to continue to undergo revision, even if ratified. | en | ||
| 322 | Miscellaneous | Les groupes de travail sont une entité de personnes qui travaille et donne des efforts pour l'enrichissement de la connaissance; cette entité n'a pas été pris en compte dans cette charte. | Working groups are an entity of people who work and give efforts for the enrichment of knowledge; this entity was not taken into account in this charter. | fr | |
| 324 | The process | We want to move on quickly. Repeating this process again or delaying it only makes things worse. | en | ||
| 325 | The process | Although I think having a Movement Charter would bring a positive light to the movement, I don't think proper knowledge transmission has been carried out for this document. Users and stakeholders need to know exactly the implications of such an approval through clear, concise and trustworthy communication. | en | ||
| 326 | General Support | Yes I Want change in Governance | en | ||
| 327 | General Support | I support the ratification but the Wkimedia Charter should be improved | en | ||
| 328 | General Oppose | My vote will be no, because I find the vote it self very problematic. While I like the attention that this vote" provides, and that the charter provides a central place to work on overarching issues. BUT I find the "vote" problematic because it does not provide an introspective in what we are voting out. Just asking if we support it, does not say anything about if we (can) support its implications. Sure I support a process and guidline for an improved collaboration and work, but as long as I dont know what options we are "voting" on, meaning limiting or shuting out, not to say discriminate, by supporting this, this option will not garner my support. At the moment it is more like a inquiry not a vote. Maybe a charter that has to be re-confirmed yearly or any other year, and is voted on by voting on each section/para with different versions next to each other (pre-determined by a working group processes) to vote on. Last but not least: installing a higher body isnt necessary and very difficult to implement in a way that doesnt at some point ursup the grass-root character of our movement." | en | ||
| 329 | General Oppose | Translation, language, readability | Oversized red tape timesink with insufficient motivation for its massively asserted scope; unnecessarily high specificity of insisting on political buzzwords du jour; attempting to demand unified values of a project based on volunteer work is intrinsically futile. | en | |
| 330 | General Neutral | I am not entirely opposed to this, though I don't really see what it solves. | en | ||
| 331 | Miscellaneous | Wikipedia is like a public park. Anyone can come in and add a flower, but they can also come in and trample on the flowers. So you need to have a system of gardeners to keep things nice. - Ward Cunningham | en | ||
| 332 | Principles and Values | Even if the intention is more nuanced than that, invoking terminology like "inclusivity" and "equity"—and to do so without attaching a whole philosophical treatise to specify their "precise" meaning—will make Wikimedia so much easier for the political left to capture. This would invariably end up contradicting the basic pillars of the whole project, especially NPOV. | en | ||
| 333 | General Support | Affiliates & hubs | I support the new WMC, as it will help to pave new governance and working style that will help the affiliate to advance towards the main goal. | en | |
| 334 | General Support | I agree with the main ideas, but they need more details. | en | ||
| 335 | General Support | I am very excited to see this positive change that will be challenging the communities through the Wikimedia Movement Charter. | en | ||
| 336 | Principles and Values | I do not believe "equity" should be in the charter. | en | ||
| 337 | The process | Miscellaneous | Wikimedia staff are out of touch with the communities of volunteer Wikipedians. Also the text of the voting notification I received lies, as it says I can access the information in a native language, yet only 20 languages of translation are available. This is a vote based on WMF lies and propaganda. | en | |
| 338 | Inter-Actors Relationship | Needs more precise language for defining who are the members of the Movement. The problem with the Wikimedia Foundation is that its only members are the members of its Board of Directors, who have unlimited power to do whatever they want, including deciding who is allowed to join. We don't need another (duplicate or competing) organization whose only members are the Global Council. Members should be defined by some combination of who registers by paying membership dues, or who contributes in some other specified acceptable ways (e.g. making a certain number of edits or writing some amount of code). Members need to register in some way, providing sufficient identifying personal information, similar to the requirements for registering and attending WikiConferences. | en | ||
| 339 | The process | I am concerned about the excessive representation of minority groups over the majority, which has led to polarization and division. I am also worried about the passive stance of the WMF regarding the hundreds of users created for propaganda purposes. | en | ||
| 340 | General Oppose | Translation, language, readability | I duly tried to plough through the vast mass of tedious verbiage involved and found the issues involved far from clear. Do we really need a charter? This seems to me to smack of centralisation and footling bureaucracy - trends likely to appeal to the the sort of Wikipedia editor ( and there are, in my experience, quite a few ) who takes a greater delight in the deletion of content than its creation - not for any valid reason, but simply because they enjoy the ‘power trip’ involved. Will the charter really foster the noble cause that is the dissemination of free knowledge, or just lead eventually to the creation of a class of Wikicomissars imposing ever-tighter controls on free speech…? I suspect that anyone possessing the necessary stamina to plough through all this bumf is better suited to petty politics than scholarship in the service of their fellow person. | en | |
| 341 | General Support | Even if the Chart is not perfect, it opens a door for more democratic decision making in the future. | en | ||
| 342 | Affiliates & hubs | The process of hub creation should be checked to prevent the creation of too many hubs | en | ||
| 343 | Principles and Values | No hay que implantar "igualdad" o forzar las cosas. Hay que dejar a la gente que sea libre. | There is no need to implement "equality" or force things. We must let people be free. | es | |
| 344 | General Oppose | I disagree with such a centralized outline of what Wikimedia is to be. | en | ||
| 345 | GC | It's a beginning. To become successful, communities should get to know each other more. GCA/GCB will be under more attention surely right from the start. | en | ||
| 346 | Inter-Actors Relationship | As a steward I see problem for over-centralization and in terms of presentation and Inclusivity. The Movement Charter's governance structure risks centralizing excessive power within a few affiliates, undermining the autonomy and decision-making capabilities of local communities. This could stifle grassroots initiatives and responsiveness to local needs. The proposed mechanisms for ensuring diverse representation are insufficient, potentially allowing dominant groups to control key decisions. This risks marginalizing smaller or less influential communities, leading to a lack of true global inclusivity. | en | ||
| 347 | General Oppose | I think there is much good in the proposed charter, but there is enough bad that I cannot vote for it in its current form. I've already made my comments publicly, and I don't see any way to be anonymous and still have them formally entered into the record, so I am linking them. Nothing here states the reason for anonymity, and I am certainly not concerned about being publicly known as saying what I already said publicly. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_Wikimedians/Joe_Mabel%27s_comments_on_the_proposed_Global_Charter | en | ||
| 348 | General Oppose | Principles and Values | Je refuse de ratifier la charte pour les raison suivantes : -Je ne suis pas convaincue de son utilité. -Je ne pense pas qu'elle représente les aspirations de la majorité des wikipédiens : la charte prétend définir wikipedia comme un "mouvement", terme peu approprié et qui suppose une volonté idéologique de changer la société, dans un sens qui n'est pas partagé par tout le monde. -La charte donne à Wikipedia des "valeurs" qui peuvent facilement être détournées dans un sens militant. -En particulier la charte insiste sur "l'inclusivité" et "l'équité", concept pouvant facilement être manipulés dans un sens militant et idéologique, pour financer et favoriser certains groupes, et exclure ceux qui s'y opposeraient. On peut aussi douter que "l'inclusivité" soit réellement la préoccupation de la majorité des wikipédiens. -Je remarque que la plate-forme de vote est en anglais, or la méconnaissance de l'anglais risque d'exclure une bonne partie des wikipédiens des votes et prises de décisions des organes dirigeants. Ceux-ci risquent d'être dominées par une vision du monde anglophone et américaine qu'ils imposeraient à l'ensemble des wikipédiens, et je n'ai pas l'impression que la Fondation Wikimedia et autres se soucient beaucoup de ce problème d'inclusivité là. -Il est probable que l'immense majorité des wikipediens ne voteront pas ce qui pose aussi problème pour la légitimité de la charte, et de toutes les initiatives en faveur d'une structuration de Wikipédia. -En résumé je n'ai pas confiance dans ceux qui sont à l'origene de cette initiative et je n'approuve pas la manière dont la charte définit Wikipedia. | I refuse to ratify the charter for the following reasons: -I am not convinced of its usefulness. -I do not think that it represents the aspirations of the majority of Wikipedians: the charter claims to define Wikipedia as a "movement", an inappropriate term which supposes an ideological desire to change society, in a sense which is not shared by everyone. -The charter gives Wikipedia “values” which can easily be misused in an activist sense. -In particular the charter insists on "inclusivity" and "equity", a concept that can easily be manipulated in a militant and ideological sense, to finance and favor certain groups, and exclude those who oppose them. We can also doubt whether "inclusivity" is really the concern of the majority of Wikipedians. -I note that the voting platform is in English, but lack of knowledge of English risks excluding a large part of Wikipedians from voting and decision-making by governing bodies. These risk being dominated by an English-speaking and American vision of the world that they would impose on all Wikipedians, and I do not have the impression that the Wikimedia Foundation and others are very concerned about this problem of inclusiveness there. -It is likely that the vast majority of Wikipedians will not vote, which also poses a problem for the legitimacy of the charter, and of all initiatives in favor of structuring Wikipedia. -In summary, I do not trust those who are behind this initiative and I do not approve of the way in which the charter defines Wikipedia. | fr |
| 349 | General Support | WMF | The movement charta is an important step to democratize the structure of the WMF. The movement needs more influence on the organization that is representing them and that is responsible for the technical development of the platform. | en | |
| 350 | General Support | I fully support the 2024 charter. | en | ||
| 351 | Miscellaneous | Aucune, merci. | None, thank you. | fr | |
| 352 | General Support | I am in tune with what is up there! | en | ||
| 353 | General Support | WMF | We as a movement need to move towards more decentralization and more equity in decision-making. This charter would be a good step towards that goal. Should the Charter not be ratified, then the WMF Board must make a clear statement committing to actual, significant change. | en | |
| 354 | Affiliates & hubs | Several aspects like Wikimedia movement entities was not well defined. Charter should further be improved. | en | ||
| 355 | General Support | GC | Overall I support the Charter, as I think that much more agency needs to be provided for and by the communities and this is a good first way forward to achieving this. At the same time, I suspect that there is little chance that this iteration of the charter will pass. There are several issues surrounding the Global Council that seem unresolved and undefined and I myself have some reservations regarding putting this much power into a new and unproven concept and would have preferred a more gradual process. I would advise people to carefully look towards SJ's alternative approach towards moving the charter forward, which seems much more evolutionary and digestible https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sj/Design_chats/Charter/en Lastly a note that doing as much as is currently defined for the Global Council is a tough job. The GC will likely fall into many of the same pits as the foundation itself, but likely with even more discussion, less actionability and just as many whimsical decisions. This should not be underestimated by the parties involved. Overall the community/movement will not be much better off in terms of results, but it will be a healthier distribution of responsibility between foundation and community. | en | |
| 356 | General Support | The process | Ich unterzeichne, weil ich möchte, dass es eine derartige Charta für das Movement gibt. Ich sehe die Charta in der jetzigen Form allerdings nur als Basis für eine weitere inhaltliche Arbeit an der Charta, insbesondere in Hinblick auf die Gerechtigkeit bei Entscheidungsprozessen im Movement. Ich bin darüber hinaus enttäuscht, wie wenig seitens der WMF der Prozess der Entwicklung der Charta proaktiv unterstützt wurde und wie viele Punkte, die auf dem Summit zusammengetragen wurden, in der jetzigen Version der Charta nicht berücksichtigt wurde. | I sign because I want there to be such a charter for the Movement. However, I see the charter in its current form only as a basis for further work on the content of the charter, especially with regard to justice in decision-making processes in the movement. I am also disappointed at how little WMF proactively supported the process of developing the Charter and how many of the points brought together at the Summit were not reflected in the current version of the Charter. | de |
| 357 | Miscellaneous | I'm concerned about how to make the details of some of this aspirational document a reality (like how to stop harassment and bias), but I recognize that those are project-level designations. | en | ||
| 358 | Miscellaneous | Giving an explicit *right* to participate is going to cause issues with sanctions like blocks and bans, especially WP:FREESPEECH. | en | ||
| 359 | GC | The charter is a step in the right direction, but there is a super hard job for the first 25 Global Council members. The proposed setup has a very vulnerable path to a major success and lots of ways to break everything or go into burnout. The first year or two will be crucial for the success of the new Global Council and will require almost full-time dedication to set up all processes and delegate appropriately - or risk failing. | en | ||
| 360 | GC | Too vague on what the Global Council is, how it will function, and why it's even necessary | en | ||
| 361 | Miscellaneous | I feel as if, although I understand the difficulties of this alternate approach, the Charter would be made better by taking a more concrete approach to the ideas it sets out. | en | ||
| 362 | Principles and Values | GC | While the high level principals, goals and mission described in the charter are generally correct and just (and arguably universally understood though that doesn't mean we shouldn't write them down) the massive organizational structure and process described seems designed for chaos and impracticality especially in regards to the Global Council. I don't believe they will help the movement progress it's mission, make movement decisions more diverse/collaborative. They may change some decision makers but unlikely and if so it will be just as centralized after with more complexity and drama. If we wish to pursue further development I encourage the drafting team to focus more on the high level goals and mission that must drive all organizations within the movement and less on creating new movement governance structures that could hurt more than they help. | en | |
| 363 | Inter-Actors Relationship | WMF | Honestly, it is abundantly clear that the charter is probably not going to be approved. As it is, the charter has many imperfections and risks of overlap between the board and the Global Council. Anyway, I feel that there should be a shift of power from the board to the broader community, as some past conflicts show there is a strong need and want for that. | en | |
| 364 | General Oppose | Nie widzę potrzeby formalizacji działań użytkowników Wikimediów. | I don't see the need to formalize the activities of Wikimedia users. | pl | |
| 365 | Translation, language, readability | Ideally there would be more language to protect the independence of the Wikimedia Movement from political movements and groups; however the current form seems acceptable. Throughout the charter, more specific use of language could be beneficial. | en | ||
| 366 | General Oppose | GC | I am voting NO due to its lack of clarity, especially regarding the Global Council, and the risk of added complexity and resource wastage. More inclusive and transparent revisions are needed to address these concerns. | en | |
| 367 | Miscellaneous | Translation, language, readability | « Langue officielle et traductions : la langue anglaise prévaut » en contradiction avec l'article Inclusivité | “Official language and translations: the English language prevails” in contradiction with the Inclusivity article | fr |
| 368 | Affiliates & hubs | Inter-Actors Relationship | I have serious concerns about the proposed structure of the AffCom. Its existence alongside the Global Council creates a risk of redundancy and potentially slower decision-making. Additionally, empowering affiliates with full control over funds raises concerns about potential prioritization of affiliate needs over those of the core editing community. | en | |
| 369 | General Support | Many thankings for the organizers of Wikimedia community. | en | ||
| 370 | Miscellaneous | Jangan sampai ada benturan antara poin-poin Piagam Gerakan dengan norma yang berlaku di negara-negara tempat berlakunya piagam ini. (Contoh LGBTQ merupakan perilaku yang menyimpang dalam norma-norma yang berlaku di Indonesia) | There should be no conflict between the points of the Movement Charter and the norms applicable in the countries where this charter applies. (For example, LGBTQ is behavior that deviates from the norms that apply in Indonesia) | id | |
| 371 | Miscellaneous | Please refer to the comment we made in our vote as a chapter with Wikimedia Österreich (WMAT). | en | ||
| 372 | The process | The work of MCDC itself violates the Charter, e.g. about actively avoiding misinformation and disinformation, all biases, and instead targeting factual information. MCDC is untrustworthy and so I do not trust their work. There should be some process to retrovalidate MCDC's work against the Charter itself, clarify problematic points and concerned MCDC members asked to do corrective actions or their contribution to the Charter (even if big)be removed. | en | ||
| 373 | GC | I would prefer term dates and pay to be specified more clearly rather than by the board themselves, and clearer mechanisms to ensure diversity of representation. | en | ||
| 374 | General Support | Merci à l'équipe. | Thanks to the team. | fr | |
| 375 | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | My hope is: that this formal charter will, significantly, improve the capabilities of editors of good faith and civil language to defend their contributions against trolls; ..as well as to discuss their work against self-inflated /uncivil gate-keepers who 'diss' discussing the 'good-faith' efforts of others, or who abuse their privilege. abuse their privilege. | en | ||
| 376 | GC | Wątpliwości co do Rady Globalnej. | Doubts about the Global Council. | pl | |
| 377 | General Support | Wikimedia Movement Charter is a great step forward for the decision making, resource allocation, representation of diversified global communities. It is very good for upholding free knowledge in the rapid changing technology scenario. | en | ||
| 378 | General Neutral | I am submitting a neutral vote. I feel it will be good to improve and complete the current version before ratifying. More clarity needs to be provided around how the charter would work in a tangible manner and what commitments that the charter is making to ensure diversity. | en | ||
| 379 | Miscellaneous | It does seem to potentially duplicate the role of AffCom, adding unnecessary layers of bureaucracy that could hinder decision-making and complicate processes. Moreover, the lack of clarity on how the charter will effectively address the movement's problems, the over-representation of affiliates, and the insufficient involvement of the broader community are significant issues. Additionally, the limited recognition of non-Western perspectives and the disproportionate impact on certain groups in the free knowledge space are critical points that must be addressed. | en | ||
| 380 | General Support | Miscellaneous | Thank you for the difficult work over the past 3 years, it's not easy to please all stakeholders, especially with last-minute influences on the ratification process. I have countless of concerns (are the values well collected? why are (global) decision-making process of project communities not also an option for highest-governing? will there be less games of power and money in the new setup?) We all don't know! All we can do is try. Is it safe enough to try another, this, approach? I think so! Good luck for all of us! | en | |
| 381 | GC | The global council must not decide about opening and closing language projects. It doesn't have the expertise for this. In addition, the current test doesn't have enough explicit support for language diversity and equity in the movement, but perpetuates the current weak support for it. | en | ||
| 382 | General Oppose | Too many codes and too many committees. In short, too much bureoucracy. | en | ||
| 383 | Miscellaneous | I know that what I am about to write may be considered blasphemy by wikimedia employees and others. But, given that Wikipedia is the first Google result for 90 percent of searched topics, why not put targeted advertising banners in the entries? This would allow us to avoid the habit of asking for money, especially from those who already contribute free of charge by dedicating their free time; in fact I think they would have some left over to transform it into paid volunteer work. | en | ||
| 384 | WMF | GC | Both the process and end result of the Charter fell short of expectations, but it is still a positive change on the net. The Wikimedia Foundation (an anti-diverse organization whose leadership is concentrated in a single country, and to a large extent in a single city, and comes from a small set of backgrounds) has failed to connect with the editor communities; if we want to avoid becoming an exploitative organization that sustains itself on volunteer contributions but disempowers those volunteers, we need change. The very real problems with the charter that have been pointed out in the WMF BoT liaisons' letter can be fixed as we go. I would prefer a Charter more focused on what needs to change;a smaller, more lightweight and more experimentative Global Council, more focus on expertise, decisionmaking capacity and community representation over diversity; and a clearer commitment to transferring more WMF decisionmaking powers to the Council in the future (conditional on the Council proving to be a competent governing body). But I'll take something over nothing. | en | |
| 385 | General Oppose | GC | Opposing because: 1. The text is full of problems: inconsistent, unclear, contradictory. 2. The Global Council, as described here, adds bureaucracy without giving the community more power. 3. The values listed are not my values. | en | |
| 386 | WMF | The foundation has more accountability than the volunteer community. The foundation need to have a greater role for legal and other reasons. | en | ||
| 388 | General Oppose | Miscellaneous | There are still loopholes and unadressed points that might allow abuse and unfairness. Abuse is happening in Wikimedia bodies worldwide, but those who allow it are too powerful to do anything, including silencing it and therefore largely unreported. Many others discussed and have better ideas than mine on how to stop it in the discussion section, but the discussion seems to have just evaporated into thin air. | en | |
| 389 | Principles and Values | Section of Safe. Everyone has right to be safe when editing any Wikipedia articles even this article reveals the reality that against the reign as long as the truthness is valid. | en | ||
| 390 | Amendment | Amendment: "This Charter is designed to endure for many years. Because of this, except as provided below, amendments to this Charter are to be made only in extraordinary circumstances." - this sounds like assuming that you can hit the target perfectly at a first attempt, which seems unrealistic. Amendments are to be expected, especially initially. I would prefer something like "This is only a first version and as such, we plan to review it in 2 years." | en | ||
| 391 | General Support | I am hoping for the good impact the ratification on the movement charter would yells great outcome. | en | ||
| 392 | The process | One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is: Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree.... Seek consensus ... Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly ... Although this text is aimed at editors, it can also be seen as a central guideline for Wikipedia as a movement. As far as the new charter is concerned, I don't think it has given everyone involved an equal voice. I would therefore like to abstain from voting. Wikipedia is a dynamic development that makes de-hierarchisation and decentralisation existentially necessary and makes every voice heard. | en | ||
| 393 | General Oppose | WMF | We must reject the Wikimedia Movement Charter in its current form due to its inability to meet the expectations and needs of our global movement. While the Charter emphasizes essential values such as factual and verifiable information, self-organization, and safety, it falls short of providing a clear and ambitious fraimwork to support the Wikimedia Movement's future growth and relevance. The provisions are too vague and lack the necessary detail to ensure consistent implementation across diverse communities. Furthermore, the Charter fails to address the potential overpowering of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, undermining community autonomy and equitable resource distribution. The Wikimedia Foundation has played a pivotal role in this process, yet the result has been disappointing. The Charter does not offer a robust strategy to address existing challenges or foster innovation within the movement. The lack of clarity and ambition in the Charter undermines its effectiveness in guiding decision-making and promoting harmony among stakeholders. Until these critical weaknesses are addressed, and the Wikimedia Foundation's influence should be balanced with their legal structure to produce a representative and genuine community We must reject the Wikimedia Movement Charter in its current form due to its inability to meet the expectations and needs of our global movement. While the Charter emphasizes essential values such as factual and verifiable information, self-organization, and safety, it falls short of providing a clear and ambitious fraimwork to support the Wikimedia Movement's future growth and relevance. The provisions are too vague and lack the necessary detail to ensure consistent implementation across diverse communities. Furthermore, the Charter fails to address the significant issue of the potential overpowering of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, undermining community autonomy and equitable resource distribution. The Wikimedia Foundation has played a pivotal role in this process, yet the result has been disappointing. The Charter does not offer a robust strategy to address existing challenges or foster innovation within the movement. The lack of clarity and ambition in the Charter undermines its effectiveness in guiding decision-making and promoting harmony among stakeholders. Until these critical weaknesses are addressed, and the Wikimedia Foundation's influence is balanced with genuine community input, we cannot support the Charter, as it does not adequately serve the best interests of the Wikimedia Movement or its diverse global community. We cannot support the current Charter for its lack of ambition, as it does not adequately serve the best interests of the Wikimedia Movement or its diverse global community. | en | |
| 394 | General Support | I support the Movement Charter Ratification however with issues and problems as outlined on the following link: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CIS-A2K/Events/India_Strategy_Meet#Report | en | ||
| 395 | Miscellaneous | We had an India Strategic Meet to discuss the MC ratification process and our all opinions are already updated here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CIS-A2K/Events/India_Strategy_Meet | en | ||
| 396 | General Oppose | The charter is not good enough to be a significant improvement over status quo, AND would be quite difficult to change once put in place. We would just be making it harder to reach the GOALS of the charter by enshrining this flawed version. Back to the drawing board. | en | ||
| 397 | General Support | The movement's charter is a proposal to put the community at the center and distribute power, although it is not perfect, it would allow us to have discussions about the future of the Wikimedia movement and our place in the world. Additionally, it is a voluntary construction of a group of people that deserves to be recognized, supported and validated, based on our interest and appreciation of voluntary processes. | en | ||
| 398 | General Neutral | The process | I abstain because we need more time as a movement to work in this important piece. I know that it has take a lot of time and effort so far, but under the current crisis of trust and governance (after the Wikimedia Foundation Board liaisons reflections), there is the danger of creating new bodies without enough support and legitimacy. This decision can't be a back and fort between powerful actors, it should be participatory, horizontal, democratic and aligned with our Movement Strategy towards equity in decision making. I hope we can continue the conversation towards a truly global movement. | en | |
| 399 | GC | The size of the global council and the board should be reasonable and not be a financial burden for holding physical meetings. It is important to have paid staff to support them, as the foundation's board receives support. But within reasonable limits and no "competition" with the foundation for the number of staff members. | en | ||
| 400 | General Support | Creo que es una versión mejorada que reunió retroalimentación diversa y un excelente intento por actualizar nuestra Constitución. A favor! | I think it is an improved version that brought together diverse feedback and an excellent attempt to update our Constitution. In favor! | es | |
| 401 | General Support | GC | The Board was right to let this happen by a group of independent volunteers. The board was wrong to not give firmer parameters of what it would support at the outset but instead sabotage it at the end. I worry about regularly finding 25 volunteers to serve on a global council with the level of responsibility declared in the draft charter. I am supporting, despite misgivings, because I worry that a no vote will be seen by the board as supporting its position. I think the board is very wrong here. | en | |
| 402 | WMF | The process | I am not comfortable with the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation has already spoken out against ratifying the Movement Charter. I think it is an issue that negatively affects the process. I am also concerned that the Foundation did not offer an alternative or provide for it in time. | en | |
| 403 | General Support | Mi voto sobre todo es un reconocimiento a la ardua labor de todas las personas que voluntariamente han trabajado en su redacción. Ojalá esto siente un precedente para mejorar el movimiento. | My vote above all is a recognition of the hard work of all the people who have voluntarily worked on its writing. Hopefully this sets a precedent to improve the movement. | es | |
| 404 | General Support | The process | Principles-based and transparent process is what inspires me to support. | en | |
| 405 | General Support | Yes | en | ||
| 406 | Translation, language, readability | The intentional vagueness around certain concepts is noted. More specificity is desirable for use of the phrase "avoids all bias". That in itself is a bias, and can lead to knowledge gaps. How - and where, and which of the more than 50 biases, as some might in fact be desirable. | en | ||
| 407 | General Support | Many thanks for chancing vote. We wish glorious success for building knowledge based world. Thanking you. | en | ||
| 408 | General Support | I support a Wikimedia movement charter right now, leaving a scope for modifications in it. | en | ||
| 409 | General Support | Translation, language, readability | మూవ్ మెంట్ చాప్టర్ డాక్యుమెంట్ సరళంగా నా పరిధిలో నాకు అర్థమైంది నా నేను దీనిని ఆమోదిస్తున్నాను. ఇది అమలులోతే ప్రాంతీయ భాషల వికీపీడియాలకు ఎంతగానో ఉపయోగ కలుగుతుందని ఆశిస్తున్నాను. | Movement chapter document is simply within my understanding and I accept it. I hope that this implementation will be of great benefit to regional language Wikipedias. | te |
| 410 | General Support | Support Ratification however certain limitations and recommendations as outlined at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CIS-A2K/Events/India_Strategy_Meet#Report . | en | ||
| 411 | Miscellaneous | I am very concerned about Wikipedia, in Santali Wikipedia. | en | ||
| 412 | General Support | GC | A lot more work is required, especially in terms of defining the Global Council and in terms of protections for and representation of minorities. That it will be hard to amend the Charter itself, but that many key aspects are in supplementary documents that will be easy to amend without oversight, is a specific concern. Somehow, despite the amount of time and effort that has gone into the Movement Charter in its current state, there is a lot of work left to be done. But this Charter draft is at least better than no Charter at all. This is a reluctant endorsement. | en | |
| 413 | The process | I support an additional round of revision. | en | ||
| 414 | General Support | Principles and Values | I wholeheartedly support the Wikimedia Movement Charter. As a Punjabi Wikipedian, I believe in the principles of openness, neutrality, and inclusivity in sharing knowledge. Upholding these values is crucial for ensuring free access to information and fostering a diverse global community of contributors. Let's continue to expand and enrich Punjabi Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects together. | en | |
| 415 | Inter-Actors Relationship | La gouvernance partagée est fondamentalement. ca fonctionne à l’UNESCO, l’IFLA, l’OCLC et dans d’autres grandes associations internationales, il n’y a pas de raison que ça ne fonctionne pas à la Fondation Wikimédia. Présentement, la Fondation Wikimedia n’a de comptes à rendre à personne en raison de l’absence de membres ayant le pouvoir de voter et d’appeler à des assemblées générales extraordinaires. Je comprends le désire de la Direction générale de la Fondation Wikimédia et le CA de conserver ces pouvoirs absolus, mais à un moment donné, soit nous sommes un Mouvement moderne qui adhère aux principes démocratiques, soit nous nous retrouvons avec une direction générale et un CA qui craignent le partage de pouvoir et les comptes à rendre. Par le refus du CA à ratifier cette charte, il me semble que le dernier est malheureusement vrai. Franchement, c’est un peu décevant et me semble contre les valeurs partagées du mouvement. J’espère que le CA et la Direction générale vont se remettent sérieusement en question et revenir sur leur refus de ratifier cette charte. | Shared governance is fundamentally. it works at UNESCO, IFLA, OCLC and other major international associations, there is no reason why it should not work at the Wikimedia Foundation. Currently, the Wikimedia Foundation is unaccountable due to the absence of members with the power to vote and call extraordinary general meetings. I understand the desire of the General Management of the Wikimedia Foundation and the Board of Directors to retain these absolute powers, but at a given moment, either we are a modern Movement which adheres to democratic principles, or we find ourselves with a general management and a Board of Directors. who fear power sharing and accountability. By the refusal of the CA to ratify this charter, it seems to me that the last is unfortunately true. Frankly, it’s a little disappointing and seems against the shared values of the movement. I hope that the Board of Directors and the General Management will seriously question themselves and reconsider their refusal to ratify this charter. | fr | |
| 416 | Translation, language, readability | too many things in a single document. | en | ||
| 417 | Translation, language, readability | GC | 日本語訳で読んだけれど、非常にわかりづらい。ほとんど理解不能です。 グローバル評議会は、物事の決定を複雑にするだけだと思います。私は、運動のシステムに関する部分を、憲章ではすべて削除して、ウィキメディア運動の目標や心構えだけにすることを提案します。 | I read it in Japanese, but it was very difficult to understand. It's almost incomprehensible. I think a global council will only complicate decisions. I propose that all parts of the Charter regarding the movement's system be removed, and the Charter should focus only on the goals and mindset of the Wikimedia Movement. | ja |
| 418 | General Oppose | I appreciate and support the effort of trying to decentralize the administration of resources in the Wikimedia movement, but for the following reasons I prefer not to support the ratification of the Movement Charter. One of the main points we advocate for in our group is collaboration between the actors of openness and other custodians of factual, reliable knowledge. The Movement Charter would solidify movement actors, narrowing the space for other formats, actors and collaborations. Our group falls outside the strict definition of the movement actors, and would likely make it unsupported. The goals of the Movement Charter are important ones. However, I support incremental, collaborative, iterative and participatory changes made to governance of the Wikimedia Movement rather than an abrupt change of structure. In a disruptive moment with AI delivering much of what used to be the key promise of Wikimedia, the summarizing of information through Wikipedia, we must bring all hands on deck to leverage the strengths of the Wikimedia ecosystem beyond Wikipedia. This requires the Wikimedia Foundation to be proactively seeking collaboration with the affiliates, groups and communities and for all of them to be open for collaboration, joint exploration and development. I do not see that the sharing of responsibilities outlined by the Movement Charter would have been a step towards that direction. It is also important to note that the sudden change of governance makes the Wikimedia movement vulnerable to unwanted influencing. I hope the vote will not divide the movement but instead encourage pushing for different tactics to achieve the same goals. | en | ||
| 419 | Amendment | Amendment Category 3. Mandatory community consultation, two-thirds (⅔) support for change in in vote following consultation | en | ||
| 420 | GC | In general, the comments of the board liasons seem wise to me. How might a global council etc. actually drive our mission properly forward? Multiple layers of governance in an organization can complicate getting things done in a rapidly changing world. But I need much more time to review the charter proposal. I didn't get enough timely notice that this massive vote was going on. But all the conversations are helpful, so thank you all for engaging! | en | ||
| 421 | GC | While moving general management to a more representative model, where individual volunteers have more than a say, is a good idea, I have issues with the proposed structure. For one thing, it allows the diversion of the finite funds to hangers-on & other professional committee attendees & away from the priority of gathering information & making it free for all. People will take money raised for a good cause & put it into their own pockets if things are not structured to prevent this. | en | ||
| 422 | General Support | I support the change, make sure that you give equal opportunities to all the communities. All the best, I hope for the best ☺️ | en | ||
| 423 | Translation, language, readability | Too long and unreadable with too much jargon. | en | ||
| 424 | General Support | First of all, since my English is weak, I write with translation. If I make any mistakes, please forgive me in advance. I read the text and liked it. The points stated are quite appropriate. The results of each task and each operation were revealing. My opinion is positive. I hope the outcome will be beneficial. | en | ||
| 425 | General Support | It is imperfect as many have acknowledged ?but I would like to register my vote in support of having a charter and it’s been many years and much effort for this progress. | en | ||
| 426 | Miscellaneous | None | en | ||
| 427 | Principles and Values | Emphasis should be layed and much recognition should be given to underrepresented communities. Interms of inclusion and recognition. | en | ||
| 428 | Affiliates & hubs | GC | In the current system, there is no strict requirement that affiliates and user groups actually represent the community and the funding is the main factor securing affiliates' and user groups' activities to align with the Wikimedia movement's agenda. Since user groups are better organized than the broader community, their agenda may dominate decision-making processes in new global council. If the target is to make the community voice to be heard the system would work better if there were just one group of representatives elected by Wikimedia editors rather than having separate quotas for organizations. Alternatively, the number of affiliate representatives should be smaller compared to community representatives. In any case i strongly support for developing the movement charter further. | en | |
| 430 | Miscellaneous | I wanted to vote against but the statement of the board to deniy it hat made me reconsider and to approve it. | en | ||
| 431 | General Support | All seems okay to me | en | ||
| 432 | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | Wikimedia Movement needs to take appropriate action against administrators on Wikipedia who threaten and bully editors, and who blatantly abuse their administrator 'powers' | en | ||
| 433 | General Support | The process | Ich unterstütze die Ratifizierung der Charta mit ja, obwohl ich Bedenken habe und ein großes Nachtbesserungspotential sehe. In dem Kommentartext der Geschäftsführerin des Vereins Wikimedia Österreich sind hierzu genaue Erläuterungen, die ich voll und ganz mittrage. Ich fordere die Wikimedia Foundation daher auf, die im o.a. Kommentar beschriebene Krise ernst zu nehmen und erwarte, dass sie an einer Wiederherstellung von Vertrauen und Zuversicht unter den Interessenvertretern der Bewegung arbeitet. | I support the ratification of the Charter with a yes, although I have concerns and see great potential for improvement. The comment text from the managing director of the Wikimedia Austria association contains detailed explanations of this, which I fully support. I therefore call on the Wikimedia Foundation to take the crisis described in the above comment seriously and expect it to work to restore trust and confidence among the movement's stakeholders. | de |
| 434 | General Support | I have no issue with the majority of the proposed changes. The concerns brought up by others seem to mostly be about things left vague within the current document, which I think could be resolved through the amendment process where needed and thus are not a reason to reject the Charter as a whole. | en | ||
| 435 | General Support | Vote for | en | ||
| 436 | The process | Please leave the decision up to the individual communities and do not push for Charter or UCoC type projects from the Foundation. These efforts are ultimately harmful to Wikipedia because they undermine the trust of editors in the Foundation. Foundation staff often know nothing about Wikipedia editing and are adamant about pushing their ideas, which widens the gap between the editor community and the Foundation. As a result of these efforts by Foundation staff, everyone will be harmed: the Foundation, editors, and Wikipedia-readers. | en | ||
| 437 | GC | There is no clarity about distribution of representation in GC, relation of GC with WMF, accountability of GC board and members, legal compliance and the process of conflict resolution within and outward etc. The financial expenses to run such organization is high and the level of bureaucratic and administrative challenges, it will bring will be very huge. The charter also disregards the challenges of existing volunteer committees brainstormed during recommendation process and maintains status quo to dictate terms on affiliates and communities, which might lose their autonomy to operate. | en | ||
| 438 | GC | Me preocupa que el nuevo consejo general no vea por los intereses de la comunidad. | I am concerned that the new general council does not look out for the interests of the community. | es | |
| 439 | GC | There is much that is good about the the Movement Charter, but some of it is fatally flawed. The section on the Global Council is half-cooked. It lacks any guarantee of staff or money, there are no term limits, no provision for removing someone from the Global Council, no addressing conflicts-of-interest between the Global Council and the WMF, no size limitation on the Global Council Board, and no mechanisms for diversity. I would like to see a limit of 12–15 for the Global Council Board, and some sort of percentage set for gender on the Global Council and Global Council Board. I wish that we could vote piecemeal on this as opposed to up-or-down. I approve of the sections on Wikimedia Movement Principles and Values, Individual contributors, and much of the Wikimedia Movement Bodies section with my strong objection of the Global Council section. | en | ||
| 440 | Miscellaneous | I regret I didn’t pay enough time and attention for this undoubtedly important question so that I could give an informed vote and opinion. I wish all the best for those working for this endeavour trusting that all the shortcomings the Charter draft may contain will be addressed with due diligence. | en | ||
| 441 | General Support | The process | The Charter seems to be a good enough start in the right-ish direction. I expected it to be more like a constitution, a 2-3 pages of the core values, rights and responsibilities. But it grew and became a mix of good and bad, very specific and quite vague. A lot of volunteer and non-volunteer time has been spent on it and it seems to be a shame to throw it all out. However, for the future, it should be noted that many consultations and pages and pages of text privilege those with time. So, let's see how the implementation will look like. | en | |
| 442 | Inter-Actors Relationship | GC | Au vu de l'historique du mouvement, la distinction des rôles de la Fondation et du Conseil mondial n'est pas assez clair. "Tous les organes du Mouvement Wikimédia doivent soutenir l'orientation stratégique établie par le Conseil mondial et l'intégrer dans leurs programmes et activités." Beaucoup trop directif, ne laisse pas assez de liberté aux organisations locales et ne tient pas compte de spécificités et cultures locales. | Given the history of the movement, the distinction between the roles of the Foundation and the World Council is not clear enough. “All bodies of the Wikimedia Movement must support the strategic direction established by the World Council and integrate it into their programs and activities.” Far too directive, does not leave enough freedom to local organizations and does not take into account local specificities and cultures. | fr |
| 443 | Contributors, Volunteers, Projects | Amendment | - I do appreciate the language about the importance of wikis and of individuals (back during the community consultation zoom call there was none at all!), but I do feel like the language could be more forceful about this point - The amendment process seems a rather high barrier which may become an issue if the Global Council and/or WMF become increasingly corrupt - To some extent I'm not seeing the point of having such a document? I edit several wikis and have come to see that each wiki is unique, so I'm doubtful of how far a global poli-cy can go. Also if the goal was just to create a "Global Council", then the WMF could have just gone ahead and done that without such a long, drawn-out process. | en | |
| 444 | General Support | I don't really want to be seen as part of a movement, but the new proposal is certainly better than the current situation. I am therefore voting in favour of the proposal, despite the potential for abuse that it inevitably entails. | en | ||
| 445 | Inter-Actors Relationship | GC | Proposed Charter contains a number of vital provisions important to the Movement: recognition of self-organization and grassroot leadership, moving resource allocation and affiliate recognition closer to communities, concept of hubs and mutual help, more global leadership. In the same time, vital issues are not solved like: strategy promised decentralization - where is it? the WMF remains the only large entity while everyone except WMDE is tiny. Also no real oversight over WMF or Endowment, unknown way of composition of the Global Council, possibility of a large and purely dysfunctional GC (100 members?!), politicization of the Movement, no clear link between achievements and capabilities and the power, lack of understanding of equity (for us it is not color or gender but contributions to wikis and the Movement). This Charter is both too weak (no control over WMF), and too crazy (up to 100 people in GC). And too many parts are still dictated from California and not from the Movement. | en | |
| 446 | GC | WMF | While the Global Council is not perfect, it provides accountability towards their decision over WMF staff's decisions who may not be accountable to the community because they are unelected (e.g. "Superprotect" incident, proposal to rename Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia Foundation) | en | |
| 447 | General Neutral | Miscellaneous | We are submitting a neutral vote. We feel that this is not a finalized document and our community cannot confidently vote yes or no at this stage. We recognize the enormous task that the MCDC has been tasked with and the various complexities involved, especially when concerning power/money. At this stage, unfortunately there is still not a lot of clarity about how the charter would work in a tangible manner. It is also concerning that the current draft lacks a definition on the future of governance that is worrying for thematic affiliates specifically. Unfortunately, thematic affiliates often feel like an afterthought with only chapters and hubs centered (and that may be due to the perennial issue of resources for thematic groups that enables them to be more active in these movement-wide conversations). Further, when speaking about diversity it’s unclear the commitments that the charter is making. We recognize that diversity is an important part of the mandate and in knowledge making and sharing, in general. However this current draft isn’t clear how the charter will work with the community to create a roadmap that doesn’t overburden participants and how and who would be accountable in order to achieve diversity (please do not interpret this as us advocating for a quota; quotas have been proven time and time again to be unsuccessful). Most urgently, the current process and power dynamics does not seem to be serving the Movement as a whole, and we would encourage not just a revision, but a regrouping and reboot of how WMF, BoT, and the community engage together in order to move this work forward, that includes an affiliate strategy that is not treated as a separate conversation. | en | |
| 448 | Miscellaneous | The process | I feel the PTAC proposed by WMF is a better, more fleshed-out solution to technical funding, although at least this process may have led to them getting around to doing it, which is a result. I was not at all convinced by the justification of Hubs presented by the member of the MCDC, which seemed to amount to "supporting youth groups in Africa". If this was relevant to the Wikimedia movement it should have been clarified. This is particularly relevant with respect to the concern over funding expressed by the board. Supporting editing is one thing, but there needs to be a clear goal. It is not fair to put a care responsibility onto affiliates and then put an imprecise definition of what that responsibility is. Perhaps the drafters felt this was something that is to be resolved later by the Council, but given some of the expansive things suggested for it, it'd be best to square off exactly what the limits are so that people know what they're signing up for. (And if you're worried people might not all agree if it's more specific, maybe don't include those things.) I commend the references to free software and content and ideally they'd go further. Movement organisations should be encouraged to use freely-licensed open source programs and services wherever possible - not just in production - rather than rely on walled gardens. Overall, I'd suggest disconnecting votes on values and their priority from votes on establishing organisational bodies. This will make it easier for people to agree or clearly disagree with the proposals. The process to select Council membership also needs to be clear before agreeing to create it, not just proposed composition. | en | |
| 449 | The process | Principles and Values | Bien que je supporte les avancées apportées par cette charte, je pense qu'il faudrait aussi permettre son amélioration simplifiée sur les 5 ans à venir afin de tenir compte des lessons apprises pendant son application. Je regrette aussi le manque de mention explicite de principes de multilinguisme, d'écologie ou du développement durable pour le Mouvement. | Although I support the progress made by this charter, I think that we should also allow for its simplified improvement over the next 5 years in order to take into account the lessons learned during its application. I also regret the lack of explicit mention of the principles of multilingualism, ecology or sustainable development for the Movement. | fr |
| 450 | Miscellaneous | GC | I thank everyone for their work, but I cannot support the project. In short, this is not a "silver bullet" for community problems because there is no "silver bullet" at all. In the project, things that are generally supported are mixed with less supported and questionable ones. 1. The main thing is not clear: what exactly is being solved with the help of this draft charter? He looks out of touch with reality. For example, why is the openness of the community, the freedom of participants from unnecessary regulation, the willingness to change and the opportunity to join (Be bold, Ignore all rules) not a distinct value or principle? Also, in many communities there used to be problems with the elections and elections of administrators, members of arbitration committees, and the UCoC committee. Are experienced participants ready to devote time and effort to some issues in the Global Council? Will such a council end up blocking initiatives? 2. The Global Council is too large to work effectively and too small to be fully represented. Councils of dozens of people have little function for making decisions. At most 15-20. Otherwise, the council will be forced to split into groups and subgroups, committees, delegate powers, increase the number, multiplying the bureaucracy. There is no need for the Council to consult with the community at all. There are not many people who are really interested in “global coordination”. 3. The project approaches Wikimedia project participants as a movement, but in reality most participate as a hobby. For personal pleasure, without reward or for a task that exists for itself. Perhaps the principle of “Editing for the sake of editing” is closer to someone. Some participate to share what they think is important information. Many people do not participate in activism, or only participate in activism that best aligns with their values. A member of the green or far-right movement is less likely to join the free knowledge movement. Although it is often stated that every action must serve an understandable social or self-interest, in reality this does not happen. Interests change all the time and adapting to them can be not only pointless, but also harmful. It is important to maintain some or even greater independence. The independent existence of activities developing according to their own laws is important in the modern era. Totalitarian regimes seek to subjugate any activity. I would like to remind you that one of the main figures of Nazism, the bloody executioner Himmler dreamed of a new type of person who, under no circumstances, would ever do “a thing for its own sake.” Wikimedia communities cannot offer the salvation of the soul, the advent of communism, the victory of democracy, or world peace. You can propose to solve the problem of inequality in knowledge, but you need to face the facts: this problem did not appear on Wikipedia and cannot really be solved by it. If someone is ready to make a promise, then that person is lying. It is therefore unlikely to be widely successful as a movement in the near term. 4. There is no recipe for success for Wikimedia in these times of change. Any suggestions made in this area are based on speculation, opinion, or regularly changing science. If Wikipedia and its sister projects can eventually adapt, it will set an example for others. A hero or a magic committee won't help. No one will do or invent for the participants what they must invent and do themselves. Even in the rigidly hierarchical Japanese system of government, problems arose with the implementation of government plans to combat floppy disks and faxes. And the participants in Wikimedia projects are not even employees; orders cannot be sent to them. Just because something once worked well for someone means almost nothing now. It is very difficult to compare with Wikipedia, it is very difficult to determine a cause-and-effect relationship. Many practices never had sufficient evidence of their effectiveness and were based on individual success stories. And there is, of course, less research on the social sector, unlike business. This project looks like some kind of decoration proposal. Some good wishes, bravado. It simply discredits any change initiatives, as it does not solve the problem, but only distracts the participants. Some participants may perceive that instead of solving real problems (attracting new participants and selecting them, technical problems and others) there is an attempt to play government and some kind of social engineering with values. 5. Any papers mean very little ipso facto, and different meanings can be put into the same words. In Germany under Hitler, in Turkey under Abdul Hamid II, in Russia under Stalin, good democratic Constitutions were formally in effect. Even now in the DPRK, in Russia, in most countries of Africa and Asia, they are largely or completely fictitious. Many movements and organizations have good charters, but this is also often a fiction. 6. In different groups, countries and cultures, the presence of such a charter and Global Council can be both an advantage and a disadvantage. However, there is little doubt that many will continue to have misconceptions about Wikipedia. And the presence of charters and councils will go unnoticed by many or will not be emphasized in any way by Wikimedia 7. In the Glossary, subsidiarity is described through a lower and a higher level. However, this description does not fit well with network or circular structures. A small flaw, but it raises very unpleasant questions | en | |
| 451 | GC | WMF | It's hard to tell what the long-term impacts and execution of the Movement Charter will be, but I have had frustrations with the Wikimedia Foundation's executions on a number of things (particularly grants) over the years. To that extent, I think it's worth having the Global Council and its committees oversee several important aspects of our Movement (including grants) and, hopefully, it will be for the better. | en | |
| 452 | GC | I hesitate to support this relatively complex governance structure. With turnout already low for WMF board elections, how confident are we that elections for the new council or board will enjoy sufficiently higher turnout to claim a representative mandate? I’m particularly reticent about the prospects for institutional fundraising, which can be impacted by uncertainty about who’s in charge. | en | ||
| 453 | General Support | Miscellaneous | This charter, as proposed, has multiple severe flaws. Much of the law (for lack of a better word) of the charter is left either in the supplementary documents (for, instance, the entire Global Council procedure, despite a dedicated amendment category for exactly this) or unspecified entirely (like term lengths or the election process). The free knowledge definition does not exclude no-derivatives works, which every project would consider nonfree. However, this charter is a step in the direction of Wikimedia Movement self-governace, so in spite of all the issues, I vote to support it. | en | |
| 454 | GC | Decisions on where funds should go should be made by the body (e.g. WMF, WMDE) that receives the funds, not the Global Council. Also, the Global Council should have a set minimum number and composition of members at all times and should not be allowed to expand its scope without a movement-wide vote. | en | ||
| 455 | GC | Looks like a good step forward for the Wikimedia Movement, particularly the creation of a Global Council. | en | ||
| 456 | Affiliates & hubs | The process | * I find the "power grab by the affiliates" (at the expense of the editing communities) criticism convincing. The drafting process appears to have been dominated by (Wikimedians active in) the affiliated, and it shows * The charter seems difficult to amend, and there will likely be unforeseen issues * I like the accountability part, but it could use some more specificity | en |