Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/mapping/Alignment
Section 3: Movement Charter Agreements / Disagreements
In this section, we have analyzed the perspectives and comments produced by movement stakeholders throughout the charter discussions, so that we can map perspectives and positions that identify areas of agreement and disagreement along with open questions. This includes prior charter text produced by MCDC, public statements from the Wikimedia Foundation, affiliate position papers, individual contributor feedback, etc.
Methodology
In the mapping process, all of the public statements and ratification vote feedback was reviewed and categorized line-by-line to surface key proposals and perspectives from every statement. Then, these categorized statements were distributed between four overarching topics aligning with the main topic areas of the movement charter.
- Movement values - how do we define and prioritize our core values?
- Movement governance - how can we make decisions effectively? What are the structures of accountability within the movement?
- Movement ecosystem - what are the future roles of various movement groups?
- Movement resources - what is the most impactful way to distribute resources across the movement?
Under each topic, areas of alignment are listed. Areas of alignment were determined by consistent agreement across different stakeholder groups, where there were no significant or clear objections raised. Areas of disagreement or unique propositions have been reframed as either areas of divergence or open questions to guide future conversations. We have done our best to frame these questions based on the material at hand. We also acknowledge that there may be other open questions not reflected in the data or that we overlooked. We have included an appendix with links to comments and quotes where available for reference.
Key takeaways
The public statements focused mostly on movement governance, especially on ensuring equity and representation in decision making and establishing a Global Council. There was also a lot of feedback in the movement ecosystem topic focused on clarifying the roles of different movement bodies, including affiliates, proposed hubs, and the Wikimedia Foundation.
Key trends across the topics include:
- There is overall alignment on the need for common movement values, especially among affiliate organizations. Feedback has been given on the content, including concrete suggestions of values to represent, like equity and inclusion, and core values of our online projects. However, there is no consensus on the process to develop and validate these values as a movement.
- The movement governance conversations are aligned on the need for more equitable representation and accountability. There are multiple perspectives about the purpose and scope of a global council, without clear consensus and connection to existing movement structures. There is a repeated recognition of the role of project communities and online contributors, and open questions about how the individual contributor rights and community autonomy are represented and maintained within global community policies.
- On the movement ecosystem topic, there is clear consensus about the need for changes to the affiliation model. There are requests for additional clarity for the role and responsibilities of the Foundation, affiliates, and hubs.
- Regarding movement resources, there are comments in favor of evolving existing grantmaking and fundraising approaches. The changes would center around subsidiarity - that is, allowing groups and individuals who have direct experience and/or local context to be more involved in how and in what ways resources are distributed. This would involve working closely with local and regional groups within the movement.
Content
| MOVEMENT VALUES | |
| Divergence / Open questions | Alignment |
| 1. Is Wikimedia a movement? | |
| ➼ Is Wikimedia truly a movement, and if it is, what defines it? | |
| 2. Would Wikimedia as a movement benefit from common values? | |
| ➼ Can the values expressed in a movement charter have meaning if not more deeply discussed with and validated by the movement? | ➼ Common values are important and helpful for the movement. |
| ➼ Are the core values of the project communities sufficiently represented? | |
| 3. How do we balance equity and other core values? | |
| ➼ How do we balance the emphasis on equity with the current definition of evidence-based knowledge? | ➼ Values of equity and inclusion open the pathways for diverse participation and content creation. |
| ➼ In particular, how does the collection of indigenous knowledge, well in line with equity and inclusion, fit with this definition of evidence-based knowledge? | |
| ➼ How do we ensure values are not used to justify censorship or the suppression of certain viewpoints? | |
| 4. What values are missing (in the proposed text)? | |
| Should we include: | |
| ➼ commitments to multilingualism and ethical sharing practices; | |
| ➼ provisions for transparency and accountability; | |
| ➼ protection of free speech and diversity of viewpoints; and | |
| ➼ principles of neutrality and impartiality, including clear stance on advertising and commercial influence? | |
| MOVEMENT GOVERNANCE | |
| Divergence / Open questions | Alignment |
| 5. What is a good distribution of responsibilities / power in the movement? | |
| ➼ How do we address the tension between professional organizational structures and online project communities, rooted in volunteering? | ➼ Lack of clarity regarding responsibilities and relationships between movement entities leads to overlaps and insecurity. |
| ➼ Is it necessary to ensure separation of powers and autonomy of a new global governance body (global council), including its finances and staffing? | ➼ There are decisions that can be made closer to those affected. There are responsibilities that can be devolved from the Wikimedia Foundation. |
| ➼ Charter, as proposed in June 2024, may lead to power imbalance. There needs to be sufficient “checks and balances” to prevent abuse of power / conflicting interests. | |
| 6. How to best ensure good representation of diverse perspectives in global decision-making? | |
| ➼ How can we do more than the prior proposal to ensure online project communities factor into decision-making structures and processes? | ➼ Ensuring that the movement decision-making is truly representative of its global community needs further work. |
| ➼ Should Wikimedia movement governance rely on wide participation and grassroots leadership rooted in the logic of digital democracy? | ➼ Need for clear accountability mechanisms for the proposed new governance structure. |
| ➼ Do governance mechanisms that rest only on the shoulders of volunteers create imbalance in participation and, if so, what level of professional support is needed? | ➼ Representation of marginalized communities is currently lacking in decision-making structures and processes. |
| ➼ How can we ensure structures do enough to foster equity and diversity in decision-making? | ➼ Need for clearer mechanisms to ensure diversity in future decision-making structures. |
| 7. What is the purpose of a global council? If one should be established, how? | |
| ➼ What is the scope, role, and accountability mechanism of a global council, vis-à-vis existing structures, and what problems does it solve? | ➼ If devised, a global council needs to have clarity of role and scope and responsibilities. |
| ➼ Would the establishment of a global council lead to a different type of centralization, instead of empowering online project communities? | ➼ We need clear accountability mechanisms for new governance structures. |
| ➼ What are the meaningful steps in experimenting, evaluating, and iterating, before firmly establishing a new global council? | |
| ➼ How much would a new governance system cost, in time and financial resources? | |
| ➼ How would existing structures transition responsibilities to a new global council? | |
| ➼ How would we avoid unnecessary duplication and parallel decision-making? | |
| 8. How do movement level policies interact with project community autonomy? | |
| ➼ How do we include online contributor rights in the charter in a way that respects the appropriate autonomy of our project communities? | ➼ Clarity is needed on how global policies interact with and impact project community autonomy and self-determination. |
| ➼ Do we need to extend the definition of contributors to include organizers and technical developers, etc.? | |
| MOVEMENT ECOSYSTEM | |
| Divergence / Open questions | Alignment |
| 9. What is the future role of affiliates in the movement ecosystem? | |
| ➼ How do we ensure the role and autonomy of online project communities is respected? | ➼ There needs to be changes to the affiliation model, accounting for longstanding conversations in the movement. |
| ➼ What are the roles and responsibilities of the different types of affiliates? | |
| ➼ How can we foster further collaboration between affiliates? | |
| 10. What is the future role of the hubs? | |
| ➼ Would a clearer definition of regions of the movement help us align on hubs? | ➼ Hubs need to have a clear definition, including their expected connection with the rest of the movement ecosystem. |
| 11. What is the future role of the Wikimedia Foundation? | |
| ➼ How are the changes in the role of the Wikimedia Foundation, or lack of change in the role, aligned with the overall direction of Wikimedia 2030 movement strategy recommendations? | ➼ Clarity of the Foundation’s roles and responsibilities is essential to avoid overlap and misalignment. |
| ➼ What will be the core functions the Wikimedia Foundation delivers to the movement? | |
| 12. How do we ensure safe environments within our ecosystem? | |
| ➼ Providing safe space to volunteers is essential and a priority in supporting volunteer participation on any level. | |
| ➼ Clear mechanisms for conflict resolution in the movement are needed and welcomed. | |
| MOVEMENT RESOURCES | |
| Divergence / Open questions | Alignment |
| 13. What is the best system to distribute funds within the movement? | |
| ➼ Would financial incentives enable more equitable participation? | ➼ Devolve grant allocation, both on the strategic and operational level, from the Wikimedia Foundation. |
| ➼ As the Board of Trustees approves the overall budget for the Wikimedia Foundation each year as part of the annual planning process, what are opportunities for movement input on resource allocation within the approved budget? | ➼ Provide more clear guidelines for global resourcing. |
| 14. How can we better engage local and regional organizations in movement revenue generation? | |
| ➼ As banner fundraising is closely tied with platform operations and continues to be led by the Wikimedia Foundation due to legal and policy obligations, how can we explore diversifying streams of revenue for movement entities beyond banners? | |
| ➼ How can the Foundation and local affiliates collaborate on local donor outreach (given privacy laws and donor data retention policies)? | |
For more information on the sources of the alignment mapping, please refer to the appendix with links to comments and quotes.