Movement Charter/Ratification/Voting/Results/Voter comments - report

Translate this page

In June-July 2024, a ratification vote on the Wikimedia Movement Charter was held. The vote consisted of three separate votes running in parallel: a vote by individual Wikimedia project contributors, a vote by Wikimedia movement affiliates, and a vote by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.

All individual and affiliate voters had the opportunity to provide comments regarding the Movement Charter while casting their vote on SecurePoll. A total of 456 individual voters of 2,451 total (18,6%) and 65 affiliate voters of 129 (50,4%) left comments in 15 different languages (English, Arabic, German, Spanish, French, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Kyrgyz, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Telugu, Ukrainian, Mandarin).

Methodology

Once the Charter Electoral Commission confirmed the results of the vote, the support team to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee translated the comments into English, categorized the comments into themes, analyzed the results, and composed the report that is published here on Meta-wiki.

The extent of the comments varied: some only touched upon one theme, while others were covering a wider range. In the categorization of these comments, the notion of primary and secondary themes were introduced, to capture the main point of the comment and also highlight the key secondary point that was being made. For the categories themselves, different layers were used to support qualitative analysis:

Movement Charter content layer with 7 categories of feedback given to specific sections or concepts of the Charter: principles and values; contributors, volunteers, and projects; affiliates and hubs; Wikimedia Foundation; Global Council; inter-actors relationships; and amendments.
The contextual layer was introduced to capture remarks made regarding the process and the presentation of the content, including categories related to: ratification (in particular); process (in general); and translation, language, and readability.
The miscellaneous layer, which brought together comments of general nature, appreciation notes, expressions of frustration, and comments that relate to topics beyond the Movement Charter.

Once all the comments had been categorized, a qualitative synthesis of comments was done, based on the sections of the Charter. A summary thematic analysis of the general direction and content shared in the comments during the ratification vote has been provided. This is the core component of the current report, focusing on the Movement Charter content and contextual layer.

General distribution of voter comments

About two-thirds (⅔) of the individual voter comments and three-fourths (¾) of affiliate comments were directly related to the content and context of the Movement Charter. Other comments were categorized as “miscellaneous”, providing more general perspective or expressing gratitude or frustration related to the process.

Among the content and context comment categories the topic of the Global Council was by far the most numerous across both voter groups and primary and secondary themes. In addition, most of the affiliate comments were providing perspectives on the Charter drafting process, while it was not as heavy a focus among individuals. The individual voter group was sharing more perspectives on the connection of the Charter to contributors, volunteers, and projects, which was one of the least-commented areas for the affiliate voter group.

Distribution of category related and miscellaneous voter comments

Regarding the content of the comments, 289 individuals (64,7%) commenting provided remarks closely related to either Movement Charter content or its immediate context and 158 individuals (35,3%) shared general comments (incl. expressions of gratitude and frustration).

The proportion was similar among the affiliate comments, where 50 voters (76,9%) provided remarks closely related to either Movement Charter content or its immediate context and 15 organizations shared general comments (incl. expressions of gratitude and frustration).

Individuals

Affiliates

Primary themes of the voter comments

When looking across content and context related comments from both voter groups, the topic of the Global Council was the most numerous, being present in more than a quarter of comments from both voting groups.

Additionally, the main feedback area of the affiliate feedback was the process, being brought up by 38% of comments on content and context. While it was not as prominently highlighted in the individual voter feedback, it was still touched upon in 42 instances (14.5%).

In addition, a dynamic that stands out is a rather high level of comments related to principles and values (12.8%), as well as contributors, volunteers, projects (14.9%) coming from the individual voters. At the same time, there were notably less comments on these areas made by the affiliates (6.0% and 2.0%, respectively).

Category	Individuals		Affiliates
Category	Count	Percentage	Count	Percentage
Principles and Values	37	12.8%	3	6.0%
Contributors, volunteers, projects	43	14.9%	1	2.0%
Affiliates and hubs	14	4.8%	1	2.0%
Wikimedia Foundation	13	4.5%	1	2.0%
Global Council	83	28.7%	14	28.0%
Inter-actors relationship	26	9.0%	5	10.0%
Amendment	6	2.1%	2	4.0%
Process	42	14.5%	19	38.0%
Ratification	6	2.1%	1	2.0%
Translation, language, readability	19	6.8%	3	6.0%

Individuals

Affiliates

Secondary themes of the voter comments

A secondary theme was identified in analysis of the comments of 88 individuals (19.7%) and 18 affiliates (36%). In secondary themes, the Global Council continued to be a heavy focus for content and context comments, highlighting its importance as a topic - even if the main point of the comment was about something else, the Global Council concept was still mentioned in many cases. At the same time, the process related comments were not as prominent as secondary themes, which are more about detail rather than bigger picture.

Category	Individuals		Affiliates
Category	Count	Percentage	Count	Percentage
Principles and Values	9	10.7%	2	11.1%
Contributors, volunteers, projects	12	14.3%	1	5.6%
Affiliates and hubs	5	6.0%	3	16.7%
Wikimedia Foundation	11	13.1%	1	5.6%
Global Council	19	22.6%	8	44.4%
Inter-actors relationship	4	4.8%	1	5.6%
Amendment	8	9.5%	0	0.0%
Process	7	8.3%	2	11.1%
Ratification	4	4.8%	0	0.0%
Translation, language, readability	5	6.0%	0	0.0%

Individuals

Affiliates

Qualitative thematic analysis of voter comments

For each section of the charter, main themes and actionable items have been synthesized across both voter groups. For some sections, high level summary paragraphs have been provided to summarize content that goes beyond concerns and immediate action. The report also includes a synthesis of the comments received around the process and language used in the charter.

Principles and Values

Main themes that emerged from comments in this section include:

The lack of clarity around the use of non-free content, such as images, and the potential for inconsistent implementation across different projects.
The section’s emphasis on equity, with some commenters feeling that this could lead to a focus on promoting certain viewpoints over others, rather than prioritizing evidence-based knowledge.
At the same time, some noted that the Charter does not go far enough in addressing issues of equity and inclusivity, and that more work is needed to ensure that the movement is truly representative of its global community.
The Charter lacks provisions regarding transparency and accountability.
The potential for the Charter to be used to justify censorship or the suppression of certain viewpoints, particularly in relation to issues like homophobia, transphobia, racism, and other political and social justice issues.

Some actionable items proposed by comments in the section include:

Explicitly state and prioritize the protection of diversity of political and philosophical beliefs.
Provide greater clarity around the principles of neutrality and impartiality, with some contributors feeling that these principles are not adequately represented in the Charter.
Prioritize the protection of contributors' rights, including the right to free speech and the right to contribute without fear of harassment or retribution.
Prioritize and reflect the importance of cooperation and collaboration.
Provide greater clarity around the Charter's stance on issues like advertising and commercial influence, with some commenters believing that the Wikimedia movement should explicitly reject these influences in order to maintain its independence and integrity.

Contributors, volunteers, and projects

Main themes that emerged from comments in this section include:

The Charter's potential impact on the autonomy, self-organization and collaboration of the Wikimedia language projects
Overall inadequate representation of project community interests in the Charter
Lack of representation for marginalized communities and inadequate attention given to the needs of small language communities, including the need for more inclusive and diverse decision-making processes.
The potential for the Charter to be used to justify censorship or the suppression of certain viewpoints, particularly in relation to certain political and social justice issues.
Lack of clarity around the role of Wikimedia project administrators and the potential for abuse of power.
The potential for the Charter to be used to justify the imposition of bureaucratic or administrative burdens on volunteers, rather than supporting their work and contributions.

Some actionable items proposed by comments in the section include:

Prioritize the rights and autonomy of volunteers, and ensure collaborative and community-driven decision-making rather than being controlled by a centralized authority.
Focus on supporting the work of volunteers, rather than trying to impose a top-down structure or bureaucracy.
Prioritize the protection of contributors' rights, including the right to free speech and the right to contribute without fear of harassment or retribution.
Prioritize the protection of volunteers' labor and contributions, and ensure that they are not exploited or taken advantage of.

Affiliates and hubs

Main themes that emerged from comments in this section include:

The Charter gives too much power to the Wikimedia movement affiliates, which may not always act in the best interests of the Wikimedia movement or its core purpose but are set to be given a lot of power and autonomy.
The Charter prioritizes the interests of affiliates over those of volunteer contributors, who are seen as the heart of the movement.
The current affiliates model is seen as a problem that the Charter does not adequately address, and some users believe that it should have been resolved before being encoded into the movement's governance.
Currently, the affiliates model does not guarantee that the affiliates always follow the Wikimedia movement principles, because there are not adequate control mechanisms in place to ensure their accountability.
There is a general unfamiliarity with the concept of Hubs, which caused people to not see how they will solve problems within the Wikimedia movement.

Wikimedia Foundation

In the comments, there were two conflicting approaches when it comes to the Foundation’s role in movement governance, one of which would narrow the scope of the Foundation and the other expand it. One prominent view presented was a “limited” Foundation role; to see the Foundation serve the Wikimedia movement, rather than leading it, and to return to its supposed original purpose of coordinating MediaWiki development. Another view, however, was to have the Foundation play a greater role due to legal and regulatory reasons, because it can be better held accountable compared to other entities within the movement, such as the volunteer community. Both views seemed to desire for greater accountability and transparency within the Foundation’s operations and more resources for the underrepresented movement regions.

Main themes that emerged from comments in this section include:

The Charter gives too much power to the Wikimedia Foundation, therefore upsetting the distribution of power; some comments stated that the Foundation should not have control over programs outside of its technical expertise.
The Charter should be more specific about the roles and responsibilities of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and should provide more detailed guidelines for resource distribution.
The phrase "not limited to" in the Charter's description of the Foundation's responsibilities is seen as problematic, as it implies undisclosed responsibilities.
Concerns raised regarding the Foundation's Board of Trustees’ decision to speak out against ratifying the Movement Charter, and the lack of an alternative proposal to replace it.

Global Council

Main themes that emerged from comments in this section include:

Overall, the Charter lacks clarity and specificity, particularly regarding the Global Council.
The Global Council's potential to become overly bureaucratic, which would slow down decision-making processes for the Wikimedia movement globally.
Lack of clarity about the Global Council's composition, election process, and representation, especially on the lack of term limits and removal processes for Global Council members.
Lack of such clarity may result in potential marginalization of thematic groups and affiliates, as well as underrepresented voices, in the decision-making process.
Potential costs and financial burden of the Global Council.
Potential for conflicts of interest between the Global Council and the Wikimedia Foundation.

Some actionable items proposed by comments in the section include:

The Global Council should have a more defined role and responsibilities.
The Global Council should have more autonomy and decision-making power; at the same time, it should remain accountable to the community.
The Global Council should be more focused on supporting and empowering affiliates and individual contributors, rather than taking on a more centralized role.
There should be a clearer mechanism for diversity and representation within the Global Council.
The Global Council should have a more defined relationship with the Wikimedia Foundation, and that there should be clearer guidelines for their collaboration and decision-making processes.
The Global Council should have an independent budget and decision-making power over its own finances.

Inter-Actors Relationship

Main themes that emerged from comments in this section include:

The transition to the new governance structure could potentially result in parallel processes or additional burdens on volunteers and communities. Overall perceived emphasis on bureaucracy and “red tape”.
The Charter may create a power imbalance between different groups within the Wikimedia movement, and it may not provide sufficient checks and balances to prevent abuse of power.
The Charter proposes a different centralization of power with potential for abuse and conflicts of interest.
The Charter has potential to create a power imbalance between different groups within the Wikimedia movement, i.e. Charter being used as a tool for control or manipulation because it does not currently provide sufficient protections for minority groups or individuals.

Some actionable items proposed by comments in the section include:

The governance structure of the Wikimedia movement should prioritize decentralization and grassroots leadership, with a focus on supporting local communities and initiatives.
Decision-making processes should be located as close to those affected by the decisions as possible, rather than being centralized.
Provide a clearer definition of the relationships between the main actors in the Movement, including the Global Council, the Board of Trustees, and the Wikimedia Foundation, and their role and responsibilities.
There should be a clear separation of powers between the Global Council and the Wikimedia Foundation, with the Global Council having autonomy over its own decisions and actions.
Explain more clearly about the distribution of funds and resources.
The Global Council should have a clear and separate role from the Wikimedia Foundation, with a focus on supporting and empowering affiliates and individual contributors.

Amendments

In general, there was an overall desire in the comments for the Movement Charter to be considered a living document that is subject to regular review and revision to ensure that it remains relevant and effective, rather than a static document that is set in stone. Any amendment process should be flexible and adaptable, with a focus on making changes that are necessary to ensure the continued health and success of the Wikimedia movement.

Some actionable items proposed by comments in the section include:

Overall the Charter needs to be adaptable and open to oversight, evaluation, and review.
The amendment process should be transparent and inclusive, with opportunities for wide community consultation and input.
Amendments should be made in an orderly and phased manner, rather than all at once, to avoid overwhelming the community with too many changes at once.
The threshold for approving amendments should be higher, such as 60% or more, to ensure that changes are made with broad global movement support.
An electoral commission should be responsible for overseeing the amendment process, including determining which category an amendment falls under.

The process

Main themes that emerged from comments in this section include:

The criticism of the process being too long, complex, and exclusive.
Some commenters felt that their voices were not heard.
The Charter has not been developed with sufficient input from the Wikimedia movement, especially project communities, contributing to the optics of it being pushed through without adequate discussion or debate. Concerns raised regarding the process being too affiliate-centered.
The role and influence of the Wikimedia Foundation in the Charter process, with expressed perceptions that the Foundation is trying to impose its own agenda on the community.
Expressed frustrations with the lack of progress on addressing the actual problems and concerns of the Wikimedia community, including feeling that the Charter process is a distraction from more pressing issues.

Some actionable items proposed by comments in the section include:

Future efforts to develop the Charter should be more participatory and inclusive, with more opportunities for community input and feedback, using a more iterative and adaptive approach and with ample opportunities for revision and improvement over time.

Ratification

Main themes that emerged from comments in this section include:

Several comments stated that voting alone does not fulfill the participation criterion, and that more inclusive and participatory processes are needed to ensure that all voices are heard.
The voting system chosen for the ratification vote may not adequately represent the diversity and size of the Wikimedia movement. In particular, the low percentage of required eligible individual voters (2%) to form a quorum for the individual vote is a concern, with some commenters feeling that it is too low and could lead to a situation where a small minority of voters can impact the entire movement.
There was a general sense of frustration and disappointment with the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees' announcement that they may not agree to ratify the Charter, despite the lengthy process and community input.

Translation, language, and readability

Main themes that emerged from comments in this section include:

As a basic document for the movement, the intentional vagueness around certain concepts and provisions within the Charter is noted, but more specificity wherever possible is deemed desirable.
In general, there is a desire for more inclusive language and translations to ensure that the Charter is accessible to people from different linguistic and geographical backgrounds.
It is noted that translations of the Charter should be adapted to the norms and realities of different language communities, while maintaining the original idea and spirit of the Charter.
A small minority of comments deemed the use of a single language (English) as the predominant language as problematic.

Some actionable items proposed by comments in the section include:

Write the Charter in a clear, concise, accessible, and inclusive language, avoiding jargon, corporate-mission-statement fluff, technical terms and complex concepts.
Provide a summary and explanatory video of the Charter to make it easier to understand and accessible to people with lower English skills.

Miscellaneous

Main themes that emerged from comments in this section include:

There are many voters appreciating the efforts of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee in drafting the Charter.
A few suggested that the Charter should include more actionable parts and provide clearer guidance on how to address specific problems.
Expressed disagreement with the concept of a "movement" in general and the Charter's definition of it in particular
The Charter needing more ambition to support a truly global movement
The potential impact of the Charter on non-Western perspectives and the disproportionate impact on certain groups in the free knowledge space.