Talk:Wikimedia movement

message: I thought the Lead section for this article was well-written, and provides readers with a concise understanding of what the Wikimedia movement is.  I found the Structure of the article to be logical; however, the sections were quite short and could benefit from additional information.  In particular, there should be more information on the "Wikipedia community" section, the "Projects" sections should include a sentence or two description highlighting each project (rather than a word or phrase), and there should be the name of the "thematic organization" that was listed along with more information about it (otherwise the section should be removed as it is only one vague sentence).  I thought there were Reliable Sources for the information in the article.  The Grammar/Spelling was accurate to the best of my knowledge. Andrewmcfar (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: ... it would fail an AfD discussion. No third-party sourcing for most of the content, and unduly promotional. If there is a policy that says such rules don't apply to this topic, I've not seen it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . If no credible third-party sourcing is added, this article should be nominated to AFD.--Darwinek (talk) 10:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleting this article would be unfortunate in view of what can be done. I spent a lot of time on the article in French and I even proposed it to the label as a good article. Unfortunately, there is indeed not enough ternary source for it to be accepted. I regret that my English isn't good enough for me to work on the English version. Lionel Scheepmans ✉  Contact (French native speaker) 21:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  If this article was about anything else... 

message: Leaving aside the many other issues with this navel-gazing exercise, I note that the infobox states that the 'movement' is an 'informal organization'. It also gives a website - 	'wikimedia.org'. The latter is the website of a legally-registered charitable non-profit organization with multi-million-dollar income and assets: clearly nothing 'informal' about that. Given the obvious contradiction here, the infobox would seem to need amendment, though I suspect any resolution of the matter might require admitting that this article seems to be conflating at least two different things... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The informal organization has an informal arrangement with the Wikimedia Foundation. It's not an "official website" of the movement, per se. Informal organizations don't always have formal websites. The "terms of use" and "privacy policy" for that site are Wikimedia Foundation terms and policies, they are not movement terms and policies. Obviously the movement conforms to Foundation terms and policies while providing services to the Foundation on Foundation sites. wbm1058 (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Remember that the only members of the Wikimedia Foundation are the members of its board of directors. I am not a member of the Foundation, but I am a member of the movement. wbm1058 (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have third-party sources for all of that stuff about 'informal arrangements'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: There are serious issues here. Firstly, this subsection should clearly, if this putative 'movement' actually exists as a global across-phenomenon (the recent AfD made it clear that this is open to debate) be entitled 'Wikipedia communities', since the many diverse Wikipedia projects within the overall remit of the WMF do not share the same 'community'. And secondly, the section should not be making general statements about how such projects are structured, based apparently on what the English-language Wikipedia does. They are (at least nominally) automatous, subject to the constraints the WMF imposes on them, and accordingly statements about one may not apply to all For example, as I understand it (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) not all the Wikipedia projects have an Arbitration Committee. It is, to my mind, grossly improper for the English-language Wikipedia to be presenting itself as the archetype for all projects, even if only doing so through carelessness. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "individual project communities" or "Wikimedia project communities". IMO that subsection should not be under "organizations" (which, apart from "Wikipedia community", are all [relatively] formally constituted organizations). It might do to explain that there is a community which emerges on each project, link to the list of projects, and give some examples based on the sources. Without wading back into "is it a movement," there is overlap between values, even if they're high-level ones: belief in the importance of free to access content, belief in the importance of free to use content, trying to encourage participation, using wiki software (and all that entails), a collaborative spirit, a commitment to discussion/discourse, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Wikipedia community'