戦略/ウィキメディア運動/2018-20/報告/運動協議の概要2020年/対照表

概要

勧告

実装

報告書

よくある質問

	賛成……素晴らしい、どんどんやってください。役に立ちます、必要です、完全に賛成	加筆と明確化、編集を……良いけど手直しが必要、何かが足りない、明確にする必要がある、もっと踏み込んで、改善の提案がしたい	反対……気に入らない、望まない影響の可能性あり、実行すべきでない、変更しなければだめ
原則	原則は基本-運動の構築基盤となる価値 原則はコミュニティの価値観の代表 助成金、公平性および包括性、偏りのない知識、説明責任および協働作業について特定のサポート サポート-「将来の理想像を築く強固な基盤」 次の段階に向けて、基本価値の指針としてもっと目立たせて強調する必要あり	知識のフリーな共有に関する価値を追加/強調する ボランティア精神を強調する 次の段階の基本価値の指針として、原則をもっと際立たせるようにする 「公平性」をどこにいるか、誰かだけでなく、ウィキ上のコミュニティにも適用。（未開発の姉妹プロジェクトまたは小規模ウィキペディアVS英語版ウィキペディア） 「効率」は、より広く積極的に定義されるべき。バランスの良い効果に関連するし、最も成功した解決策を促進するべき。（「リソースを無駄にしない」という否定的側面だけではない）
1. 持続可能性と柔軟性を促す	有償 API をサポート コンテンツの大規模な商用ユーザーは無料でコンテンツを利用し、限られたリソースに負担を強いている 収益創出を増やし、ウィキメディアの財政的持続可能性を確保 ローカルで人手を雇う ローカルの人員の方が職能的作業はうまくこなせる。コミュニティあるいは提携団体の構造的発展ならなおさら。 職員がどこか遠くに配置されているのではなく、コミュニティに根付いた熱心な人員がコミュニティのために働くべき 編集以外の活動にも対価を Voluteering is a Western concept and can't be the approach with all communities Other Support for reaching the highest potential for our partnerships Support for tracking new roles in the movement	加筆 Addressing paid editing: one of the absolute biggest issues we face today Environmental sustainability and natural resources - (around access to verified information, reducing the movement's footprint, resilience for Wikimedians - natural and human-made disasters) Explicitly mention sustainability of "emerging communities" 編集 Clear definition of the word "cultural change" Alternative to the word "track" - has negative connotations Paid API should be studied in depth before application 明確化 What is the justification for increasing spending? Meaning of "3rd party ecosystems" Paid API only for extremely large corporate users	有償 API に反対 ウィキメディアの経済状態 (だけでなく政策面も) と自立を損なう プロジェクトが商業ベースになるきっかけになるのではないか コミュニティとの関係に影響する ウィキメディアのプロジェクトのどの部分をペイウォールの向こうに置くのでは、まさに開かれた知識の真逆では 有償の API アクセスに金を払う相手なら、データベースのダンプを取得できるはず API ユーザーを一等、二等などと分別するのでは、公平性の問題を招く可能性がある その他 Editing and only editing is what constitutes this movement "50% of budget should be spent in developing countries" in a footnote 有償「ボランティア」なんて、もうボランティアではない ウィキメディア運動の推進力は編集であって、編集にしか担えない 脚注として「予算の50％を途上国で使う」と書くべき
2. 誰もが参加できるコミュニティに向けて文化の変革を起こす	ユニバーサルな行動規範 ようやく出ました！ 健全な、新人をもっと温かく受け入れる作業場の雰囲気を実現 コミュニティ内の雰囲気をよくすると、ボランティアが増えるかも これまで求められていた流れであり、少数派に安全な環境が整う 憲章 相互作用と提携団体の細則を導く運動の価値や原則およびガバナンスの標準文書を支持 評価プロセス 誰も取りこぼさない、もっと人懐っこい文化に向け、私たちが進んできた歩みを説明し評価するプロセスを支持 全体 女性や少数派を認める文化の積極的な変化を強力に支持 より不安定な状況で生活していない人々は、文化を変え安全のメカニズムが必要なことは、しばしば曲解されてしまう 関係者全ての説明責任と透明性を支持 IPマスキング 政治的に不安定な環境にいる編集者の保護が必要	Elaborate differences between online and offline communities Documents that will be written, guidelines, implementation, processes Universal Code of Conduct Not enough: it speaks of "maintaining a healthy atmosphere" when it it isn't the case to start with Make it adaptale to each community's unique circumstances and context Elaborate how it connects to existing local policies and conflict resolution structures and how/by whom it will be enforced Focus on prevention rather than punishment, building shared understanding of what is (un)acceptable by including harassers themselves Edit "inclusive language": doesn't apply to all languages/communities Should not be too complicated, there are already many project-level terms of use and guidelines Insist on the need for enforcement and the necessary capacity/training (a code by itself won't solve all problems) Charter Provide a better definition: e.g. is it about “values”, “rights”? Elaborate how the Charter will be adopted or how it will take effect (e.g. would it be mandatory?) Accountability should also apply to WMF Cultural Change Provide a clearer definition: what kind of cultural change is needed (from which to which set of values) What are the implications? Why do we need cultural change? Language Explicitly mention contributor groups that are “included”, as in women, LGBT+, age groups, etc.	WMFの押し付けに対する不信、例えばFramban/Superprotect 事案（フランバン/スーパープロテクト） 進行中の実行イニシアティブに関する懸念（コミュニティの意見に無関係にIPマスキング対策を 進めていないか） 荒らし行為が大幅に増えかねない 嫌がらせへと発展する可能性 その他 "Space free of conflict”: unrealistic ask, collaboration isn’t possible without conflict
3. ユーザーの経験を向上	支持、プラットフォームが使用機器を超えて応答型で柔軟になるという点で。 支持、技術的に改善して使いやすいツール。 改良点は、より多様な使用機器に対応し高度な機能を盛り込み、利用者に使いやすいインターフェイス作り。 支持、新規参加者でもウィキペディアを編集できる環境づくり。ビジュアル編集機能が新興で規模が小さくこれから発展するコミュニティに与える影響を強調したい 支持、さらに使いやすさを高めるツールの開発	Add Balance feedback and interactions with new users and old users Mention Sister Projects needs (lots don't even have a functional visual editor yet) More emphasis on training and removing barriers to access for new users Need for open communication channels between communities and developers Focus on developing a Wikimedia chat Balancing enriching, visually appealing content and make it not very expensive + carbon friendly Spoken-word, oral knowledge is missing Edit It’s not possible to create accessibility for everyone; have more relaxed goals Technical accessibility is useful, but takes time and will not work out for everyone the same To make explicit lack of technical infrasctructure and technical barriers holding people back, e.g. in Africa (Art+Feminism). Clarify Relation of User Experience with Diversity of readers and editors UX =/ Diversity Who's the owner of our software at the end of the day (and what's the role of the wider community)	Focus should be on knowledge production and quality content, not knowledge consumption There is a risk of lower entry threshold for vandals
4. 安全とセキュリティを確保	世界の情勢が微妙な地域で、ウィキメディアンの身元を保護できるようにTORとVPN使用を緩和すべき 行動規範の共有には賛成、特にオンラインの人間関係 衝突対策をもっとサポートすべきという点には強力な賛成 編集初学者の受け入れにボランティアを当てようとするのは批判 地政学的な状況が原因で投稿に危険が付きまとう国では、一部のコミュニティにとって非常に安心 心理的支援に特別の承認	ユニバーサルな行動規範 各コミュニティ固有の状況と文脈に適応させるべき すべてのコミュニティに広く普及させる必要あり 現実の脅威や嫌がらせに直面しているユーザーに、安全基準とプロトコル実施法を明示する いじめをした者を排除する手順を欠いているので、コミュニティを「癒す」には積極的かつ抜本的な手順が必要 足りない、支援と研修が必要 プライバシー 推奨事項は、このようなプライバシーツールに対し「未対応」だの「ぼやかしたり」すべきではない その他 ずばり「嫌がらせ」に言及するべき 外部の提携先と関わるウィキメディアンの保護を明確にしてほしい 「人権」を運動の目標として明示的に言及するべき 外部のアクターを介入させるなら、ローカルの文脈を理解できるよう、きちんと近くにいるべき-地域の機構との連動を	ユニバーサルな行動規範 WMFの押し付けに対する不信、例えばFramban/Superprotect 事案（フランバン/スーパープロテクト） 進行中の実行イニシアティブに関する懸念（コミュニティの意見に無関係にIPマスキング対策を 進めていないか） 荒らし行為や嫌がらせに関する懸念 透明性も説明責任も抜きに決定を下される懸念
5. 意思決定に公平さを確保	Movement Charter To set the course for a better distribution of power in the movement and greater accountability and evaluation of actors, including WMF We need this for the movement, for engaging with partners and donors, for coordinating between stakeholders Global Council Support for a global council composed of people from diverse backgrounds Support for a system that would allow for diversity in boards and committees Support for local decision-making, clear roles and responsibilities Participation in global governance would empower local groups and increase transparency Support for a platform where the WMF listens Regional/Thematic Hubs Support for adaptable localized structures and representation Potential for: local leadership, organizational support, peers and mentorship, resource allocation, skill development, advocacy, safety and protection Support for more decentralized structure of the Wikimedia movement Resource Allocation Current communities need more voice in decision-making, especially on the resources they need and access Support for overarching governance that then redistributes power and funds through regional/local structures Open pathways to power positions Makes sense The movement needs renewal	全体 はっきりと権力分散に言及すべき 聞きたいことはたくさんある。提案された構造の役割分担、正統性、権威について。 明示すべきなのは、権力の分散と 補完性原則（実権配分）を基本方針とすること 定義、「不偏」の意味は？ 定義、「ガバナンス（統治）」の意味するところ。オンラインのコミュニティにどう適用するのか？ 確認 checks and balances 明確化、「ローカルのコミュニティにけんりょくを」とはどういう意味か、想定する対象はどのような集団なのか 加筆：意思決定の機構はいずれも結論ありきでなく、皆の意見を聞くべき - 既存でも新設するのでも 選挙はもっと透明に、さらに匿名性を高めるべき 特記すべき、中央の組織は命令機構になりすぎず、方向性はグローバルに読めて安定させるべき これを全部実現すると、経費はどれくらいか、その出所は (人的資源も含めて) 運動の憲章 定義、利害関係者ごとにどの価値あるいは標準を適用するのか（例：運動憲章で） 明確化、設立の手順や方法 多様な代表者を集めて、その人たちが起草すべき グローバルな評議会 明確化、選挙と議席配分の過程、設立過程の詳述を 不満、「ウィキメディア財団の補佐」のみという役割設定では弱すぎる 明確化、指し示すのは現状の多様性なのか、〈理想〉の多様性なのか 明確化、ウィキメディア財団、既存の理事会との関係と役割分担 詳述、想定される規模は (200人規模の議会なのか10人程度の委員会か？) 明確化、ハブ同士の関係 明確化、既存の仕組みとの関係 地域・テーマ別のハブ 明確化 the role and relationship to WMF, e.g. in terms of autonomy 明確化、ハブは運動の既存の構成要素や組織にどう影響するのか * 明確化、どの方法で・誰が参加するのか 既存の構成を崩さず、補佐させるべき 明確化、ハブの経営資金が潤沢で、もっと付加価値が提供できるのかどうか 欠落、提携団体がこのハブに占める役割の定義がない 明確化、ハブの経営資金はどうするのか 権力のある地位への経路を開く 明確化、「権力のある地位」とは何か、そもそもこの節で提議している問題は何か	Charter Fear that a global Charter will enable some committee to take over project governance, make decisions and take actions that are not supported by democratic online voting Fear of WMF centralism or intervention in projects Creating more documents and spending money are strongly discouraged Global Council Strong concerns around costs, resources and operations Concerns that it is focused on replacing existing structures without enough risk assessment The BoT should be representative of the movement regardless of the GC Concerns around adding bureaucracy Could turn into a political-like body with zero-sum games Not enough qualified people in the movement to fill the needed roles Regional/Thematic Hubs Regional hubs can be a mess for local-global communities that are not confined to a certain geography
6. 主導権を分散させて開発し育成する	The recommendation would help strengthen local communities Appreciation of focusing on local communities rather than on the international level of leadership Appreciation of focusing on peer-learning rather than vertical training Support for the overarching keyword "distributed": "Distributed is much stronger as a word than decentralized" Support for a movement-wide platform for knowledge transfer Positive vision of what is to be achieved Broad support for focusing support on underrepresented groups (women, people from emerging regions, LGBT, people of color) Capacity building is needed, eg. to have admins from Africa Support to subsidiarity and providing tailored support depending on context Support for evaluation	Mention that we also need to invite leaders from outside the movement Leave room to new people to adapt our leadership roles to their needs Suggestion to replace "formal" with "intentional" Doubts about equitable representation of leadership from the marginalised communities Doubts on how leaders are generated Better define who we mean by "leaders" (Online or offline? Volunteer or staff? Admins or Board member? All of the above?) Who is going to pay for the development of leadership Need more focus on new leaders Leadership development plans should not be an additionnal responsibility WMF is adding to affiliates work. It should be designed by WMF or Hubs. What about "non-leaders"? Mention that everyone needs to be empowered by benefiting from skills development to lead in their area. Be more specific about resources needed and allocated Add "motivated" and "recognized" to the adjective list Mention the need for *legitimate* leaders (encourage and support legitimate ones, identify toxic ones) A sane leadership network relies on groups, not individuals (resilience, handover...) Mandate limits are not the ultimate solution, rather: distribute responsibilities, roles rotation. Better link the recommendation with number 7, mention the need for language training in English Emphasis on community representation at international events	Opposition for term limits Opposition to the concept of "leader" and leadership The term Leadership is seen as problematic in some cultures No identification by activists regarding this recommendation There is fear that the community will be exchanged by other people (due to new leaders) WMF should avoid spending money on external GLAM, Education programs instead invest in volunteer development activities Movement Leaders are created alone through commitment.
7. 技能開発に投資	Support - this is a key issue for development of the movement Crucial area for the growth of the movement and lacking from local UGs The recommendation is seen as well covering community demands from 2019 consultations Solid investment for under-represented communities Support for mentorship, preferred over trainings Support for a regional hub or linguistic hub for skill building Support for skills development, especially focusing on critical pedagogy and alternative forms of education Support for training and educational programs - editing skills, admin, organizational Support for skill development and improving existing documentation in the process Support for improved research and writing skills, Support for for individual growth in the movement (e.g. W-i-R programs) Support for fundraising and partnerships (e.g. with universities and nonprofits) Support for improving tech skills Support for various learning formats (tutorials, videos, videocalls, workshops, etc.)	Concerns around transparency of resources and spending The term "cultural change" is frightening for some users as the implications are unclear Skills development should be followed up and included in affiliates’ development plan Priority for offline access/Kiwix - resources should be downloadable in an offline format for areas with low connectivity Online skills should also be well articulated and iterated, not just offline skills Asking questions about the implementation details such as dates and content Recommendation is likeable because of the less emphasis on resources but on skills Certification does not reflect quality, and would not have positive results or even be appreciated everywhere Concern that certification could hold individuals back from progress, growth and innovation	Opposition to creating a new skill-building platform (rather use Meta, or Wikiversity) We already have this platform, it's called a wiki Concerns regarding costs Opposition to creating bureaucracy around skill development
8. 内部情報の管理	The self awareness and responsibility that comes with the movement understanding the need to be more open, connected and available to its internal stakeholders Support for a participatory, multi-lingual, and searchable knowledge-base system with access to all movement learning assets Support for improving documentation (for skill development, education, reducing redundancy) If active users have special knowledge it should be used much more Support because internal knowledge is not shared well The suggested platform should be in many languages Better to have video content than text This is a key issue for development In favor, but with dedicated staff Needs to develop institutional knowledge retention	Support of the idea with reservations about whether it's really strategic Doubts about who creates the metadata and resources being invested Clarify how local communities will participate in knowledge management Clarify whose responsibility it will be Clarify why a new platform is needed (shouldn't we just improve Meta?)	A database of peers could endanger some people in contexts where being a Wikimedian is politically risky Needs additional precaution about anonymity Can become very costly
9. 利害関係者同士の調整	The Technology Council is a great point This is a key issue for development Specific request for 'contact point' Interactions between stakeholders (affiliate or not) should be diverse It will be a good welcome package to people who want to be part of the movement. Support for emergent support structures like regional or thematic hubs, for effective communication, bringing the global closer to locally-relevant Highly needed - lack of coordination in the past has led to many dramas Indeed, need for bilateral and multilateral liaisons between affilates, online projects, etc. Support for empowering for technical contributors.	Tech concil: Tech council: support only if replacing the community to shorten the process of iterative decision-making. If it's to be an additional layer - it's a bad idea Possible bureaucracy: Why technology is the only topic in need of a council? Elaborate on the Tech council's role How will it balance the noisy few and those who need the support the most but are passive? Clarify what is meant by governance document drafts and decision-making distribution May pose a challenge of "collaboration with the external knowledge ecosystem" in the affiliate work Need for a definition or replacement of "stakeholders" Mention the need for more liaisons who have in-depth knowledge and connection with wikimedia projects online communities Define what "built-in coordination function" means Mention the language barrier and how we can address it Emergent support structures should only be implemented in a way that can be opted out by affiliates if they need to Clarify what "emergent structures" mean	Coordination as an independent goal has no value Introduce something like a request-for-comments system to which only recognized sub-organizations have access Tech council - terrible idea, worst possible way to do software development
10. 訴求する主題を優先	Supportive of the recommendation Prioritizing topics for maximum impact Supporting volunteers who work in high impact areas Positive feedback on analyzing the knowledge gaps for prioritizing content Support for the need to understand the impact of our content Support for helping a diversity of people contribute to a diversity of subjects Support for bridging content gaps (gender gap, cultural gap) - this is already being done	Clarify "impact" and "prioritizing impact" Clarify that engagement of volunteers will not be predetermined by movement organizations Not clear how impactful editing can happen when edits depend on volunteer interest. Supportive as long as it specifies that priorities will not be imposed globally Contributors, not administrators, are “in charge of judging the credibility of information” Not clear who will be imlpementing the recomemndation, e.g. WMF/affiliates/volunteers Not clear if the focus is on funding or content Focus instead on prioritizing partnerships/technology tools If it's about content gaps (gender gap, cultural gap) then say it explicitly Define what kind of impact is desired (shouldn't turn into a "top view" logic) Focus should be on poorer content and the one receiving less attention, not those that will potentially have a big impact if improved, as we aim to cover "all knowledge" (no matter the impact) Clarify relationships between impact, diversity and project independence	Opposition to: content guidelines, intervention with volunteer work Opposition to decision-making power on content with "impact" Concern that criteria for notability will be abolished by an external committee Concern the volunteer freedom to evaluate the relevance of topics is in danger If something has great numbers doesn't mean it has great impact It stifles innovation, will drive volunteers away from the movement Wikipedians should be free and should be allocated resources no matter what they decide to write about Impact causes disagreement There are editors who do not see how this recommendation relates to others It's not desired for each minority group to write its own content
11. フリーな知識における発明	The recommendation would support Oral knowledge collection and non traditional method for documentation Would open the way for developing small-languages / minority cultures documentation tools Taking into account the needs of other Free Knowledge organizations seems to be the right thing Strong support for policy revision or refinement, e.g. Notability for marginalized countries and communities Support for experimenting new policies to allow adapting to more diverse cultural contexts Encourage projects that create new sources Support for Wikimedia projects to remain relevant on the Internet by innovating with new formats In agreement that we lack platforms to document Knowledge from Oral languages	Make working with Indiginous and oral content more explicit Concerns about implementation: should be community-led Mention that it needs to be a community effort to create ways to authentify oral sources Lots of resources being spent on innovation which may be used by very few in the community Support for oral content if on a separate project, too early or not possible to implement on Wikipedia (may depend which Wikipedia - some already do) Innovating with new formats should be tightly connected to Skill Development Mention the role of sister projects Encourage bolder experiential learning	Oral content and inclusivity of non-writing cultures is important, but WMF has no legitimacy to lead on it Reservations of conflict issues with original research policy WMF cannot meddle in Wikipedia policies Fear of shifting Wikimedia function to Activism
12. 評価し反復し、取り入れる	Evaluation allows self-awareness and constructive criticism This is basic, obvious and necessary Support for iterating processes that propose changes through research and testing Enthusiasm for the purpose of the recommendation A culture of evaluation should be encouraged, only way to know if we're on the right track	Need clarification of what would be the metrics for evluation Concerns that a lot more reporting required from volunteer projects and affiliates Use evaluation to increase accountability of stakeholders so that they better align with the movement’s strategy Indicators should be common to the whole movement and collectively defined	Evaluation and adjusting actions are useful, but it is not a strategic goal If WMF wants to track metrics, they should do it themselves
13. インフラストラクチャーの拡張性を計画	Scalability is important. More servers for more free knowledge A framework for scalable infrastructures would help develop Wikimedia contribution locally Supporting mentorship This is the recommendation that will allow us to reach 2030 Increasing developers’ awareness of community needs	Projects of upscaling should be co-built with communities (esp for online projects) Need to embrace nuances and cultural differences of our communities Proposing to divert traffic to reduce infrastructure load Add: major technological issues that we will face as a movement, and clear actions around them Highlight the need for greater communication in the movement more Make more explicit technical development and the infrastructure for developer tooling Clarification needed about "communication solutions" Provide more technical tools ready for incubator and new languages, sister projects Clarify communication/coordination spaces and dedicated teams for infrastructure scalability Scalability is desirable, but seems more like a statement of principles	Potential threat from engaging third party developers Devoting resources to building new communication systems to replace wikis instead of training and onboarding for our wiki-based projects interferes with recruiting editors to work on the projects.
一般的なコメント	推奨事項がここまで進展して、ここまでのプロセスで利害関係者がこれほど多く集まったし、さらに推奨事項が変革にもたらすポテンシャルを喜びたいし支持したい 肯定的なフィードバック、コンテンツや方針、手段や統治、権力の分散の多様性について 大胆な方向づけを支持、ウィキペディアが現状で抱える弱さを提示している (コミュニティの健全性、新人の定着率、コンテンツの格差) 技術を分離した概念としなかった点を支持、テコ入れの手段として取り込んでいる点 衝突の解消について、ようやく提言したから コミュニティの多様性を支持、オンラインでも組織化されたコミュニティでも同様という提示について ここで提示された戦略と推奨事項は、私たちにもその取り組みにもとてもよく適している 広く門戸を広げ拡散させないキーワードの提唱を支持、そのほうが関係する集団の自律性に注目できるから 文書全体には公的的なコメント、書き換えが必要なところはほんの少し 推奨事項を支持、構成の標準が正しいと評価でき、改善の余地を残しているから プロセスを肯定的に評価：提携団体にもとうとう発言のチャンスが巡ってきたし、新興のコミュニティは協議に参加できて喜んでいる	足りないもの - もっと明確にすべき点 運動の設立概念として、知識の自由、ボランティアの価値を明確にすべき 運動ならびに財団に対するボランティアの貢献をもっと認識すべき 技術コミュニティを忘れないで-技術セクターの将来には深刻な問題があるのに 一般的な問題に対する対策を追加すべき リソースの生成と割り当てについて、具体的な推奨事項が欠落 有料の編集とその分野の会社に対して行動を起こしてほしい 偽ニュースの時代、「信頼」を明確に築き、ウィキメディアは信頼できる情報源になりたいとそれを言葉にして戦略に組み込むこと ウィキペディアへの注力-百科事典関係者を安心させる必要がある 同じ結果が複数の推奨事項に重複して示してあるから、混乱する どの推奨事項も、利用者の個人情報を収集しないことを明確にする 疎外されたグループに対するアウトリーチの重要性、 フィードバックの経路、コミュニケーション問題の解決 「期待される成果」の機能を明確に：「提案」なのか、すでに設定した目標なのか もっと野心的に提携先を探しどこかの団体と連携してはどうか 提携関係、提携先選択はもっと大胆に 言語 それぞれの推奨事項のコアとそれがもたらす変更を具体化するべき-「期待される結果」を明確に示すべき 推奨事項の用語を改善する-曖昧さ、焦点の欠如、性別と多様性の帰属を明示する、翻訳の問題、概念が明示されていない-英語を母語とする人間でさえ理解が難しい 言葉の選び方が不満、および用語の意味付けが専門的（「企業っぽい」） ウィキペディアと百科事典に対する私たちの関わりは維持しなければだめだ 言語にLGBT +の用語がない 環境の持続可能性の必要性が欠落 翻訳品質 実施 コミュニティが実装に深く関与する場合にしか、推奨事項が機能しないと主張 主な質問は次のとおりです。技術サポート、財政支援、能力開発および調整-主な懸念は実装に関すること 実装に関する詳細の開発をずっと先まで待たされるなんて不満だ 新興コミュニティには場合によって、もっとサポートが必要	言語に対する批判-曖昧さ、明瞭さの欠如、高い読解力を求められる 手順がトップダウンに見える、WMF主導で提携団体ばかり重視 プロセスおよび運動戦略全般に対する不信 実はこのプロセスと無関係に発生している事態を「隠蔽」しているのでは 協議のしすぎに反対-文書のすべての変更点を相談するのではなく、プロセスの主要な段階のみ相談してはどうか ウィキペディアをWMFを含むどんなエンティティにも制御させることに反対 提携組織に意識を集中しすぎという批判、オンラインのコミュニティを除外していないか 商標およびその商品化に対する変更の恐れ なんでも全般的な変化に反対-プラットフォーム、多様性
用語集		文化の差異 サードパーティの生態系 「運動」の定義-用語集で提供される定義には不満。 多様性はまだあいまいな概念であり、まるで平均的な貢献者の逆像を定義したかのよう 用語集を完全に翻訳、もっと完成させるべき