The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. This discussion shows just how complicated discussing something for which you have a connection can be and in this discussion everyone, on all sides, including those who say they are not part of any movement, and including myself have a connection to the topic being discussed.Does a movement exist? Who knows; one side says it's a self-evident yes and points to the various ways a movement is defined and used, one side says no and points to the lack of reliable independent secondary sources using the term in significant ways. Is peer reviewed research good enough to establish notability? Who knows; one side says "yes, because we place a premium on the reliability and importance of those sources" while the other side says "No, because all the peer reviewed research are by people who are not independent and thus the research does not convey notability". And on and on the discussion goes.It is clear that there is not a consenus to be found at the moment. Given the already extensive discussion and large number of sources presented and the fact that anyone new who would weigh in would be just as connected as the rest of us, it does not seem that more time would lead to a consensus either. So I am closing this as no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This "Wikimedia movement" seems not to exist in independent reliable secondary sources, as of my brief skim. This was mentioned by others at Talk:Wikimedia_movement#If this article was about anything else..., and it was suggested the article be deleted. The sources are literally all mailing list entries or other WMF/Wikimedia primary sources. The opening sentence has an unresolved {{Citation needed}} tag. Secondary sources only talk about the "Wikimedia movement" within the quotation of a Foundation official; they don't describe any such 'movement' in their own voice. That means a policy-compliant article cannot be written.
Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. A basic news search returns articles in "Mint", "TheTower.org", "ISRAEL21c", "Dialogos" and "Legal Insurrection". Of course, the "-wikipedia" in that search is kind of an issue: removing it brings up this Forbes contributor article, this The Verge article (which quotes WMF staff), thesetwo Slate articles by Stephen Harrison. None of them are primarily about the "Wikimedia movement", as separate from the Wikipedia community and the WMF, and I'm not sure such a thing really exists. This page has had a long and illustrious history: it was created in 2005 as a redirect (at Wikimedia") when that page was moved to "Wikimedia Foundation". On 2016-04-22, it was moved to "Wikimedia movement" (with rationale ""Wikimedia" sometimes refers to WMF; renaming to Wikimedia movement to be clear about purpose of article"). It's not clear to me that it was created to be about the "Wikimedia movement", and it's not clear the "Wikimedia movement" is, as the kids say, "a thing". To make an analogy, we can imagine referring to people who build rat rods as "the rat rod movement" in an article about them, or to Debian users as "the Debian movement". This doesn't mean that "rat rod movement" or "Debian movement" are viable subjects for their own articles separate from "rat rod" and "Debian". As far as I can tell, the sources that exist are mostly using the phrase "Wikimedia movement" in this incidental fashion, rather than demonstrating the notability and existence of it as a thing separate from Wikimedia/Wikipedia/WMF. jp×g 03:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only does this article fail to demonstrate notability through independent sourcing, it actually fails to provide credible evidence that anything resembling the supposed subject of the article actually exists at all. As I noted in the edit summary mentioned above, where I added the 'citation needed' tag [1], the claim that the many diverse contributors to multiple multi-language worldwide projects constitute a single 'movement' or 'community' is sociologically untenable boosterism. I could probably extend this argument further, and suggest that describing contributors to even a single project (e.g. the English-language Wikipedia) as a 'movement' (or arguably even a 'community') is questionable, but that isn't what is under discussion here. 'Movement', if it means anything, implies common goals, shared by all. It is self-evident, from looking at even a single project (e.g. the English-language Wikipedia as an obvious example) that not all contributors share the same goals. Some may have some sort of abstract attachment to ideas of 'free knowledge', but nothing I've ever seen in the way of research suggests that all contributors do. How is it possible to have a 'movement' of editors, if 'anyone can edit', but many cannot (e.g. for language reasons, across the diverse projects) necessarily even communicate with each other? What sort of 'movement' consists of 'anyone'? Some time ago, I got somewhat involved in discussions over an article on another 'movement' - a rather odd political group - that seemed regularly to claim an implausibly-inflated membership. When questioned on this, they stated that their figures were based not just on people they'd signed up, but on people who visited their website. The article under discussion here doesn't go quite that far, since it seems not to include people who just read articles etc, but it seems to me to be working from much the same premise. Wikipedia quite rightly won't accept such self-serving humbug from obscure political organisations, so why should it do so here? Without credible independent sourcing to suggest that the term 'movement' is more than a nice-sounding buzzword thrown around when convenient, this article can only constitute wishful thinking at best, and is probably better described as fiction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and AndyTheGrump. The only truly independent source cited here doesn't even refer to the "Wikimedia movement". --Metropolitan90(talk) 03:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We just had a Wikimania at which there was the usual variety of Wikimedia activity – volunteers, chapters, projects and so forth. There's clearly more to it than just Wikipedia and the WMF and there are plenty of sources which discuss and detail this cloud of related activity and organisations. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's lots of wiki activity and legal entities besides the WMF. See Wiki#Communities for much more of this kind. As there's lots of this stuff and plenty of coverage Wikimedia should not be a red link. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Responding to Is it a thing? (something which I also saw pop up among the reactions to the idea of a "movement charter") - To me, "Wikimedia movement" is just the simplest and most common way to talk about the large and diverse group of activities, outputs, attitudes, people, organizations, and ideas that began with Wikipedia and has some roots in/overlap with some other "movements" (see below). I don't think it should be at all controversial that there is a "movement" that includes people who share, organize, and encourage other people to share all sorts of knowledge for free on Wikimedia projects. That doesn't mean that everyone who does anything on Wikipedia needs to identify with said "movement," but a lot of people do. What other term is there that includes not just the article writers on the English Wikipedia but the people mobilize others in their town to contribute to Wikipedia, people who work with museums pitching them the virtues of donating images or adding to Wikidata, people who contribute to Wikipedias or teach other people how to at risk of political persecution, groups who write Wikipedia as a way to preserve language or culture, dozens of nonprofits and groups engaged in small and largescale community organizing around the world focused on Wikimedia projects, the large conferences attended by people with many of the same interests and values despite working on very different tasks, and the people/groups who participate because of various overlaps with the other "movements" like the open-source-software movement, free-culture movement, free software movement, etc.? In other words, it sounds better (and is used more often) than "the communities, activities, and attitudes related to Wikimedia projects." Is it notable? Well that's the real question, of course. I would certainly think the underlying subject, whatever it's called, would be notable. The term appears in an awful lot of scholarship, books, and international press. The issue here is that its meaning is typically implied or taken for granted, so I get the original research concerns here. I think Common Knowledge (Jemlielniak) and Wikipedia and the Politics of Openness (Tkacz) go into a bit of detail as to why it's a movement, but I don't recall if they specifically use the term "Wikimedia movement" in doing so. I suppose it's possible that the concept itself is too broad to get much coverage, and what gets the in-depth coverage is already covered at existing articles like Wikipedia community, Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimania, and articles about the various individual projects. Anyway, I've already written too much with scant sources and no !vote. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and AndyTheGrump. Psychloppos (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without WP:THREE sources attesting to the term "Wikimedia movement" to meet WP:GNG, having an article about it violates our WP:NOR policy. As a redirect, "Wikimedia movement" is unnecessary; the existing redirect Wikimedia, which currently targets Wikimedia movement, should be retargeted to Wikimedia Foundation. Anyone typing in "Wikimedia" into the search bar will get to the WMF article before they ever type out the word "movement." This is kinda bad because it's WP:CITOGENESIS and rather intentionally so: it's the WMF that is trying to coin the term "Wikimedia movement," and maybe they'll coin it, maybe they won't, but we certainly shouldn't help coin it by making a mainspace article about it. We must have multiple reliable independent secondary sources using the term first, before we have an article about it. Levivich 15:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: It's ... reallly not WMF trying to coin the phrase ;) One of its most long-term and widespread uses is by community members and groups to articulate the movement that predated and is supported by the Foundation, and on whose behalf the Foundation maintains the projects, protects the marks, &c. That the Foundation continues to support that usage is a healthy sign. – SJ + 16:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sj: If what you say is true, you should be able to provide a source that uses the phrase "Wikimedia movement" that pre-dates the establishment of the WMF. I say no such source exists. Levivich 16:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We used to say "community"; 'movement' language (w/o searching the lists) I remember first from 2008 and became more popular around 2010 -- largely to articulate the individual and federated nature of the movement, and to avoid the misidentification of 'Wikimedia' primarily with a central org. – SJ + 17:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I notice that a couple of edit summaries for the Wikimedia redirect imply that not knowing/caring about "Wikimedia Movement" is a "very american viewpoint". Maybe a foreigner could explain that and point out some foreign-language sources we're missing? ApLundell (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The French WP article has 5x as many sources as ours. Most of the editors of the Wikimedia movement page on meta are not from the US. Not so surprising -- Most movement organizations, formal and informal -- doing partnerships, outreach, and grassroots organizing -- are outside the US. And editing and coordination on Meta, which is in large part 'the wiki of the extended Wikimedia community/movement', have been predominantly multilingual and international. The implications of 'movement' vs 'community' vary by language; over the years the former has become more popular, and is what we've used throughout our communal planning + strategy work since at least 2009. – SJ + 16:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit that I haven't gone through all 73 sources, but I've struggled to find any that meet GNG with regards to the movement; many don't mention it at all, and those that do either don't mention it in this context or don't cover it "significantly". Could you help me with WP:THREE that meet GNG? BilledMammal (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
? Do y'all also intend to delete Wikipedia community for similar reasons? i.e., neither of these things exist? I don't exist? (confused) Is this just an indictment of the media for their failure to cover us? Or an indictment of ourselves for failure to organize our anarchy? wbm1058 (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia community" passes GNG. Show me three GNG sources about "Wikimedia movement" and I'll change my vote. Haven't you been here too long to be arguing WP:OSE? :-P Levivich 02:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm thinking that I've been here too long. We all know that only Wikipedia is notable, that's why the Foundation wants to rename themselves. None of their other operations are notable. wbm1058 (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We've both been here long enough to know posting [1] [2] [3] is more persuasive than an assertion that something is notable because something else is notable. Levivich 05:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a dozen sources:
Strategy as a Practice of Thousands: The case of Wikimedia
Wikimedia movement governance: the limits of a-hierarchical organization
Open strategy between crowd and community: lessons from Wikimedia and Creative Commons
A taxonomy of knowledge gaps for Wikimedia projects
Thanks for Stopping By: A Study of “Thanks” Usage on Wikimedia
Public artworks and the freedom of panorama controversy: a case of Wikimedia influence
DBpedia commons: structured multimedia metadata from the Wikimedia commons
Early onset of structural inequality in the formation of collaborative knowledge in all Wikimedia projects
Cluster approach to the efficient use of multimedia resources in information warfare in Wikimedia
Wikimedia and universities: contributing to the global commons in the Age of Disinformation
Librarians as Wikimedia Movement Organizers in Spain: An interpretive inquiry exploring activities and motivations
Biblioteche e Wikimedia: strategie comuni per l'accesso aperto alla conoscenza e la costruzione collaborativa del sapere libero
The second is written by a Board Member of the Wikimedia Foundation, which makes it a question of whether a publication by a company employee counts towards GNG (for any other company we would say no). It fails independence.
Third one doesn't contain "Wikimedia movement"
Fourth one is a preprint, and it's written by the research team at the WMF.[2] It fails independence.
Doesn't contain "Wikimedia movement" and fails independence anyway; it's written by the WMF, and one of the writers is a high school student.
Doesn't contain "Wikimedia movement"
I'm going to stop there and save myself some time, having not found a single usable source in the first six. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, and that's why it's WP:THREE and not WP:TWELVE. If there were three, someone would have posted [1] [2] [3] (links, not titles... who posts titles without links?!) and this discussion would have been over already. Honestly I don't know why folks bother with "keep" !votes that don't have hyperlinks in them. Levivich 13:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's the sort of thing you might do if you just want to dismay people with a long list of names and titles, but you also want to discourage them from actually checking what's in there. ReykYO! 16:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Koerner, Jackie; Reagle, Joseph (October 13, 2020). Wikipedia @ 20: Stories of an Incomplete Revolution. MIT Press. ISBN9780262360609. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are citing three books (from their titles at least, focussed on 'Wikipedia' rather than the broader subject of the article under discussion here), each running to several hundred pages, while giving no page numbers. Even ignoring the issue as to whether these are actually third-party sources (which is questionable for at least two, possibly all three), it clearly isn't possible to verify whether the sources you cite actually support the specific claim being made without reading the entire volumes. Do you really think that is appropriate? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First one is written by a WMF Trustee. Second one is written by the founder of OCLC's Wikipedian-in-Residence program. Third one is written by WMF employee. None are independent. Does any RS written by someone who is not part of the "movement" call it the "Wikimedia movement"? Levivich 16:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to bee pedantic, but hey, that's what we do here. :) The co-editor of Wikipedia @ 20 was not a WMF staff member at the time the book was produced and published. Ckoerner (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich I suspect you're misunderstanding WP:THREE. Might I suggest you read User:RoySmith/Three best sources/notes? And @ProcrastinatingReader, while I agree with almost everything in your analysis of the first 6 sources, I do feel the need to object to one of the writers is a high school student; that's not a good reason to reject a source. -- RoySmith(talk) 00:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: it’s an additional consideration. While it’s entirely possible for high school students to do legitimate useful research (and I know some who have), it also has to be considered in the context of the ‘padding’ that goes on these days for the sake of college admissions, including getting names onto research papers. It warrants a closer look. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation" is a ludicrous suggestion. I have no connection to the Wikimedia Foundation. Frankly I don't really care to be associated with them. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this article appears to be to associate everyone who contributes to any of the projects with a WMF-led 'movement' whether they like it or not. Or indeed, whether they have even heard of this supposed 'movement' or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's one of the most bizarre assumptions of bad faith I've ever seen at AfD. As far as I can tell, neither the creator nor any of the top contributors to the page are WMF staff. It's one thing to view WMF activities on meta cynically; quite another to throw good faith volunteers into a grand conspiracy to force you to be part of a larger community against your will. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well the same 'bizarre assumptions of bad-faith' are routinely employed as legitimate arguments in AfDs all the time. The requirement for third-party sourcing to establish notability is based around assumptions of 'bad faith', though people are generally polite enough not to say so explicitly. As is a lot of other en-Wikipedia policy. And no, I'm not saying that people are being forced into a 'community' against their will. I'm saying that claiming that they are part of one is a falsehood. Clearly, not everyone making such claims has the same motivations for doing so, since as I have already pointed out, people have all sorts of motivations edit on the various projects, which is one good reason why trying to describe all those that contribute to the many WMF-hosted projects as a 'movement' is such a thoroughly wrong-headed idea. And remains so regardless of the motivations of those who chose to use the WMFs own material to engage in this wrong-headedness. I am perfectly willing to accept that the article may have been created in good faith, despite its obvious failings. Lots of articles are. Lots of people do lots of things on en-Wikipedia and on the many other WMF-hosted projects in good faith, only to have them rejected. Rejected, because not everyone thinks the same way, and doing something in 'good faith' isn't always sufficient. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF does not lead the movement. The movement is led by various stewards, bureaucrats, administrators and arbitrators. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The movement provides services to the WMF and operates independently of the WMF. wbm1058 (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to which reliable independent secondary source? Can we keep this AfD focused on sources? This is an article, not a projectspace page. Meta discussion on the "Wikimedia movement" belongs at meta:Talk:Wikimedia movement. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, my first awareness of this article was this AFD, and my first-time read of the article matched AndyTheGrump's understanding. The article feels like a PR attempt to redefine a large group of volunteers as a "movement" that rallies behind (or at least in the name of) the WM Foundation.
I'm a little surprised and puzzled that Wbm1058 (and presumably others?) seem to have read a nearly opposite meaning into it. ApLundell (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough Wiktionary does not define Wikimedia. Might help to have a consensus definition of exactly what "Wikimedia" is. If we take it to mean "crowd-sourced content" then the next question is who is responsible for creating this content. I take it that the Wikipedia community is responsible for Wikipedia but the other WMF-hosted sites magically write themselves. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't define words by consensus, we follow RS. Which RS have defined the term "Wikimedia movement"? Levivich 14:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We already know who is responsible for creating content. 'Anyone'. As in 'Anyone can edit'. Including people who have no idea that they are supposed to be part of a 'community'. Generally speaking, they only discover this when they do something that someone else disagrees with, who then informs the poor misguided 'anyone' that 'the community' doesn't agree with what they are doing. Who actually constitutes 'the community' is of course a very open question, since nebulous concepts like this are much more useful in such contexts if you don't try to define them. 'Community' is a weaponised word on en-Wikipedia, gaining most of its utility as a weapon through its ambiguity. Try to define it too closely at your peril... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously a glance at the thousands of blocked IPs and registered accounts belies the idea that 'Anyone' can edit. Any so-called RS that parrots that WMF public-relations line is obviously not reliable for that "fact". They have been blocked by movement leaders who have been granted blocking privileges. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, the 'anyone can edit' claims made on WMF-hosted websites shouldn't necessarily be taken at face value, in the same way that their assertions that contributors to each and every project constitute a single 'movement' shouldn't. As for your assertions about those with blocking powers being 'leaders', do you have a source for that? A third-party one? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose redirecting to Wikimedia Foundation, which does not lead/run the movement. Keeping, deleting, or even redirecting to a larger/more significant part of Wikimedia (such as Wikipedia community) would all be preferable. (Another possible option: Move to "Wikimedia", which might have more coverage? Haven't found any from a quick search, though.) --Yair rand (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The international volunteer Wikipedia community is a thing. Definitely not something that should redirect to WMF, which is the owning entity, akin to a corporation. Carrite (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest for those looking for reliable sources that they turn to academic research on Wikipedia — there are scores of papers on WP editing and many of them (most of them) accept "Wikipedia movement" (or alternative phrasing connoting the same thing) as an axiomatic and fundamental component of their studies... Carrite (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would, if that was what the term 'Wikimedia Movement' is supposed to indicate. The WMF seems to use the term in another sense, as e.g. in "A [Code Enforcement Officer - final name to be determined] is a volunteer or a staff member of the Wikimedia Movement who possesses training and technical rights, and whose duties are the prevention, detection, investigation, and enforcement of violations of the Universal Code of Conduct" [3] The 'Wikipedia community' doesn't have staff members. The WMF does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here is a reliable source (academic article on "Wikipedia: community or social movement?"). COI admission: the article has been written by me. As a sociologist of social movement specializing in Wikipedia, I am quite familiar with this topic. The good news is that Wikimedia movement is relatively well written, it correctly defines the topic as 'above' the community. The term has been used by few other scholars: [4], [5]. I certainly acknowledge that sometimes we have an inclusinist bias to topics related to Wikipedia/Wikimedia, but in this case I think the stand alone article is justified, this is a notable concept that is not the same as W-community and should not be merged there. (For laymen who did not study social movements, the difference is that social movement is composed of social movement organizations as well as wider "community" - we are all activist in Wikimedia movement, even if some of you may not think of yourself as such, doesn't matter, in scholarly terminology we are, end of story). PS. Many more sources use the term Wikipedia movement, as many scholars often forget that Wikipedia is part of something bigger. Whether this term should redirect to the Wikipedia community as it currently does I am not sure, and I'd suggest retargetting it back to the Wikimedia movement instead. Anyway, my point is that many scholarly works which use the term "Wikipedia movement" refer to "Wikimedia movement" more than to "Wikipedia community", as the key term here is movement (as in, social movement), and Wikipedia is a synonym for the more correct but less widely used term Wikimedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On a quick read/skim of the source you linked to, the case seems strongly made that if there's any "movement" involved it is the Wikipedia movement, correctly redirected. You wrote the paper, and I intend to fully read it at some point soon, it's well written and seems very interesting, yet what am I missing if you say it backs up a keep in this case and even a redirect which seems fine as is and can actually be backed up by your paper? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, from a brief skim of your article, I'd have to say that the second paragraph of your conclusions (p.224) seems a little equivocal over whether a “Wikipedia social movement” fits within current definitions, or whether such definitions need to be "stretched" to include it. And, without wishing to in any way cast aspersions regarding your academic credentials, I'd have to suggest that as someone who has been editing Wikipedia since 2004, you probably don't qualify as a third-party source in this specific discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus published his article not as an activist, but as a scholar. His experience only allowed him to make an academic point. Pundit|utter 05:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the first paragraph of the conclusion to Piotrus's article: in particular the last sentence. Piotrus is making academic points, but he is also expressing a personal wish about influencing Wikipedians, and creating "a new WikiProject centered around free culture and seeing Wikipedia as a social movement". Piotrus is of course entirely entitled to express his opinions regarding such matters, like anyone else involved in any of the projects, but he is doing so as a Wikipedian, as well as an academic. Hence my suggestion that his isn't a third-party source in the sense that Wikipedia AfD discussions generally use the term. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump The paper is a bit old in either case, but anyway, in social sciences, particularly sociology, it is totally normal for scholars to research what they care about and make personal comments, or wishes. It's pretty normal, and to say that someone who is involved in Wikipedia movement is not reliable due to that connection would be strange (first, it doesn't seem to be backed up by any policies - if you think such an article is not reliable, I'd like to see the WP:RSN discussion; second, if you start dismissing work on scholars interested in topic area X as biased, you'll be left with next to nothing. In social sciences in particular, but also often in other sciences, scholars research what they want, and what they care about, sometimes quite passionately). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I stated that your article seemed to not be a 'third-party source', per Wikipedia convention. I made no comment about reliability. This is an AfD discussion, where the need for third-party sourcing seems to be a primary concern, in an article that lacks it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are academic sources describing Wikimedia movement for a reason. Just like FOSS has both a technical and an ideological part, Wikimedia is both a collection of websites and a social movement aimed at making everyone have access to the sum of human knowledge. Additionally, it is a specific social movement, organized in a particular way It is of course just my opinion, which I expressed also in academic publications - but my point is, it is a scholar opinion that is expressed, not just by me, and the readers definitely may want to know what can a "Wikimedia movement" mean. With hundreds of results of a direct phrase, it is quite clear it exists in academic discourse. Pundit|utter 05:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You say "Wikimedia is both a collection of websites and a social movement". I'd tend to agree with you. But with one very important proviso. I don't think that everyone contributing to the 'collection of websites' can reasonably be described as participating in any sort of overarching 'movement'. Even ignoring the vandals, promoters of all and sundry, and righters of great wrongs, there are, to my mind, clearly vast numbers of contributors who do so to 'fix something wrong on the internet' because they see it, to write about their hobbies, interests, etc in a public place that lets them, and to give themselves something to do they find personally fulfilling - whether it is finding spelling mistakes, replacing hyphens with n-dashes, or adding flags to tables. Wikipedia (and the many other projects likewise) is both a medium, and a 'movement' of sorts. And it is my contention that not everyone using it as a medium (because it is there, and because they can) is doing so as a part of any 'movement'. Not without stretching the term so far that you might conclude through similar reasoning that there is a 'Twitter movement' or even a 'Netflix movement'. With all due respect to Piotrus, and other academics, my limited qualifications in the social sciences (BSc Anthropology) lead me to be a little sceptical when I see suggestions that writing on a website or two makes you a part of an all-encompassing global 'movement', and only slightly less sceptical that writing on a single website makes you a part of a 'movement' even for that website only. Not when the content of the website includes everything from lists of Simpsons episodes and characters to articles on individual species of Thripidae. I just don't see enough evidence of common purpose to conclude that contributing to Simpsons articles because you like watching the episodes makes you at one with someone writing on Thripidae because they have been your life's work. Wikipedia is a medium. A place where 'anyone can edit'. And where people do, for all sorts of reasons, on all sorts of topics. If you want to call that a 'movement' the term becomes stretched almost to the point of meaninglessness. A movement that includes 'anyone' or even everyone who types stuff into an edit-box on a website? Sorry, no. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump I addressed this in my first post above. Many people don't think of themselves as activists, but they are recognized as such by scholars. From my perspective as a scholar who researchers Wikipedia, every person who contributed to Wikipedia by editing in good faith is part of the movement. Of course, there are degrees of activism and whatever, and such a gradation is sometimes important - but for our discussion here I think it's not really relevant how we define a member of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia movement (that's a topic to discuss while reviewing a specific academic work or when trying to propose a better definition - off topic here). And there is no such thing as Twitter of Netflix movement, as those are not based on volunteers. Well, Netflix, certainly. Twitter, which is based on user-created content, takes us to the issue of prosumerism and such. But Wikipedia (Wikimedia...), being non-profit, is very clearly a type of a social movement. Now, you may have some issues with this term, and such - that's perfectly fine, and there is big body of literature in the field of sociology of social movements where scholars discuss specifics (is "x" a social movement) and generalities ("how to define a social movements", etc.). But again, this is not really relevant to us; the point is that reliable sources discuss the concept of a "Wikimedia movement" in depth and this makes it notable, hence the article discussed here is fine (if in need of expansion). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we could continue this debate at length, but since I don't think it would be either appropriate, or productive, I'll just state that I disagree with your perspective with regard to Wikipedia/Wikimedia, and I'm fairly confident that I could find scholars who agree with me. But whatever, what we need is sources, rather than assertions that sources exist. If appropriate sources exist to justify the claim in the article under discussion - that "The Wikimedia movement, or simply Wikimedia, is the global community of contributors to Wikimedia Foundation projects" then my opinions on the matter are beside the point. It is, however, necessary to provide such sources explicitly. And to ensure such sources comply with the normal requirements of AfD discussions. How about some complete citations, together with a brief quotation or two, so we can get some sense of what scholarship has to say on this nebulous movement? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, nope, nope, and maybe. People keep posting non-RS or non-GNG sources and claiming they are GNG sources but they're not:
The Forbes piece is a Forbes contributor piece, not RS as it's listed red at RSP, see WP:FORBESCON.
The Journal of Organizational Change Management piece is written by a WMF trustee. Not independent.
The Warsaw School of Economics Press piece is written by a WMF grant recipient. Not independent.
The Polish one is in Polish, which I don't speak, so I can't really comment. Maybe that's one GNG source? But if so, it's the only one so far. Do we have a second? Levivich 16:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, but a "WMF trustee" is not a "Wikimedia movement trustee", and a "WMF grant recipient" is not a "Wikimedia movement grant recipient". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What makes them not independent is that they are affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation, the owner of wikimedia.org. They've received money from the WMF (or are a trustee), and the WMF gets its money from donations to "Wikimedia" (or "Wikipedia", a subset of "Wikimedia"). They are part of the movement and thus not independent of the movement. It's like citing editors; it's not independent. Levivich 18:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Mabbett, your sources (assuming they actually are independent) certainly confirm that the phrase "Wikimedia movement" has been used, but is it always describing the same 'movement'? I suspect not. If the conclusion of this AfD is that there are sufficient independent sources on the subject of a 'Wikimedia movement' to justify an article, I'd have to suggest that they are also sufficient to demonstrate that the simplistic assertions regarding what this 'movement' is that the article currently presents readers with may not be justified. Both within this putative 'social movement' and outside, perceptions as to what it is, and what its limits are, seem to differ greatly. As one would expect them to, if a multilingual cross-cultural global 'movement' consisting of anyone and everyone who writes stuff on any of the websites of one specific non-profit organisation really is a thing at all. As for 'agenda-pushing', would you care to enlighten me as to what the agenda is, and what exactly it is pushing against? And to enlighten me as to where in Wikipedia policy it states that one isn't entitled to ask oneself exactly what it is one is participating in, or to disagree with others when they offer their own perspectives/agendas on the topic? Or is offering any opinion at all the problem, because it leads to uncomfortable questions as to our own individual motivations? A final heretical thought. If it is in the end concluded that there is sufficient independent sourcing to meet policy requirements for this topic, maybe it might be best per WP:IAR not to have the article anyway, on the basis that any participants in the process of creating it are inevitably too involved to do so neutrally, and that we should leave discussion of the topic to such outside sources as wish to offer their own diverse opinions on the matter. Or at least, not present our own conclusions as to what the 'movement' we are participating in is as some sort of independent tertiary source on the matter. That, in my opinion, is intellectually dishonest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although the reliability of most sources in this discussion has been easily disputed, there is at least one source above that is likely not reliable (on independence grounds andWP:SCHOLARSHIP grounds), but it seems that discussing the connections of the author with this 'Wikimedia movement' would violate OUTING provisions, which makes it more difficult to assess & discuss the independence of the source. But it'd be quite a shambles if a non-independent source may be considered independent due to Wikipedia rules prohibiting discussing the connection. It's not enough to meet WP:THREE anyway, but the general note still has to be made. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1. I wrote my book and the cited article before becoming a trustee, it is a red herring. 2. You seem to be forgetting that the role of academic peer review (which we put a lot of trust into on wiki) is exactly making sure that the author's bias does not cloud the outcome. All cited articles underwent a review and the "movement" part was not contested. Pundit|utter 05:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn’t referring to yourself or Piotrus actually, and yours is a good book generally, but while we’re on the topic, Piotrus’s paper says there have been few attempts so far to analyze it as a social movement. It does really have to be questioned, per Wikipedia:Independent sources, whether there’s a problem when every source making the rather exceptional claim is either on the WMF payroll, is in governance of the WMF or an affiliate, or is an esteemed Wikimedian and holds (or once held) positions of high stature in the described movement. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On peer review: firstly, there is (AFAIK) no issue with having a COI and writing an article, although it is usually declared, so COI articles still get published. And also, the effectiveness of peer review in this regard does seem dubious. [6][7]ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the academic peer review process is designed to address 'notability' through third-party sourcing as the term is understood within Wikipedia AfD discussions. What Wikipedia might do with such material simply isn't a concern during such assessments. A source being peer reviewed is accordingly not something to be taken into account in that specific regard.AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can't have editors writing about themselves and then pointing to their own works as evidence of their own notability. That is obviously ridiculous. Ain't no such thing as a "Wikimedia movement" until a non-Wikimedian uses the term. We literally cannot find a single RS example of a non-Wikimedian using the phrase. Levivich 10:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia movement with appropriate edits. The discussion shows that 'Wikimedia movement' is not a "thing" but 'Wikipedia movement' is (see the paper discussed above which is claimed to back up "Wikimedia movement" but actually shows, as a main source, the existence of the Wikipedia movement). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons and reliable sources indicated above. Article easily passes WP:GNG. ASTIG😎(ICE T • ICE CUBE) 14:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew, Pigsonthewing, Pundit. Gamaliel (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - speaking of independence and COI, it'd be great if all the editors who have voted here and who have ever received money for being a Wikimedian (whether as a WMF employee, grant recipient, wikimedian in residence, reimbursement for expenses, or in any other form) would disclose that. (I have never received money.) Levivich 17:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This would make sense if the article was about the Wikimedia Foundation and not the Wikimedia movement, which alas does not send anyone a check for their volunteer work. Gamaliel (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the money is donations that goes through the WMF, which solicits those donations by promoting "Wikimedia movement." If an editor has ever taken a dollar of donated money, or have had the job of being a "Wikimedian" (for the WMF or as a Wikimedian in residence for another institution), and is now voting to keep "Wikimedia movement", based on sources written -- exclusively -- by people who have also received donated funds... that's a huge COI multiple times over. To misquote Upton Sinclair, it's very hard to get a person to understand something when their salary depends on their not understanding it. I'm noticing a pattern amongst keep voters here and how many have at some point benefited financially from the "Wikimedia movement". Levivich 17:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to benefit financially from the Wikimedia movement. Based on the US minimum wage I estimate I am owed about $241,280 USD for my volunteer work. Gamaliel (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"the WMF... solicits...donations by promoting "Wikimedia movement."" – {{citation needed}}. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Here's a citation: the front page of www.wikipediafoundation.org which solicits donations and touts the "Wikipedia movement," specifically saying that the projects are at the core of the movement. Also like a kajillion other WMF solicitations. The WMF invented the term "Wikimedia movement" and use donated funds to promote it. On their website and elsewhere. Levivich 18:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not an independent, third-party source – which is something y'all keep reminding us we should have. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be childish. It's an WP:ABOUTSELF source to verify the statement, not to be confused with a GNG source to establish notability. Of course you know this already given your tenure and perms. Levivich 19:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With several books on the topic, it's so obviously obviously notable I'm not going to waste time explaining why. Which is entirely a different question of what and how things should be covered. I.E. WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What books? They are about Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (first priority) or redirect (second) per nom, jpxg, and Levivich.
I'm not clear on what makes this a "movement". Generally a "movement" suggests a plurality of entities working towards a common goal with varying degrees of collaboration and organization (from "none" to "centrally coordinated"), not a term promoted by an organization in the direction of its customers and affiliates (cf. rebranding).
The graphics given in the article suggest that the center of the "movement" is actually the WMF,[8][9] which AFAIK wasn't set up as the coordinating body of a broader movement (eg. in a congress of Wikipedia chapters).
Note in the first graphics entities like Wikileaks, OpenStreetMap and Memory Alpha, two of which use a wiki model despite not being part of the "movement". We shouldn't mix the concept of a wiki with the particular implementation of the WMF and its network.
I'm not clear on whether a redirect would comply with WP:POFR or not, but am keeping the option open. François Robere (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Third-party, independent, reliable source The Verge quoted a Board statement: “Harassment, toxic behavior, and incivility in the Wikimedia movement are contrary to our shared values and detrimental to our vision and mission,” said the board in a statement. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we know that the WMF likes to use the phrase 'Wikimedia movement'. Coca Cola likes to use the phrase 'Real Thing'. Red Bull likes to tell us that their brand of expensive fizzy-stuff 'Gives You Wings'. We don't have articles on fizzy-drink slogans, so why should we have one for the WMFs? As evidence for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for a supposed global 'movement', resorting to third-party sources quoting the WMF looks like desperation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a list of slogans. Describing them as such. Not an article treating a single slogan as an independently-notable thing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...and looking at the List of Coca-Cola slogans article, it suffers from much the same problems as the one being discussed here. Too much reliance on primary sources (i.e. the sugar-water vendor's own websites): starting with a lede consisting of a claim to notability sourced to said fizzy-drink supplier, and to an advertising-agency blog . As WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments go, that doesn't look too convincing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're joking, right? Quoting something doesn't mean the source is saying it in their voice. Otherwise WP:INTERVIEWs would be facts. And that's a passing mention. Does the source describe in its own voice what the Wikimedia movement is? The Verge can't be used in the article at all because the quote you provided cannot possibly be used to cite any fact. This nomination isn't about some kind of notability procedural trick, it's about the real problem of being unable to write policy-compliant articles about subjects that don't meet GNG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC) e: 18:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:N. Wikimedia.org web pages aren't "sources that are independent of the subject". Not when the article infobox lists wikimedia.org as the 'movement's own website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't believe Wikimedia, which runs Wikipedia, is notable enough to have an article about itself on Wikipedia? DreamFocus 19:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia is, but not because of any relation to Wikipedia (WP:INHERITED) but because they are independently notable. There would have been a point where they were not, and an even earlier point where Wikipedia should not have had a page on Wikipedia. (It did; I checked out of curiosity a while back, never imaging I would use the information here, but that is due to a different use case for the page, and weaker standards of notability). BilledMammal (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a publically well-known topic whereas Wikimedia isn't. Wikimedia funds and hosts its major league horse, Wikipedia, and rides it well, but then confuses itself that it has run a mile-and-a-half. As I mention above, the page should be renamed Wikipedia Movement, edited to form, and thus reflect the reality of wide common knowledge and common name. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikimedia, and restructure. I think there is enough independent sourcing to justify an article on the umbrella entity of wikimedia. That article could contain a section on how the various Projects under that umbrella entity can be viewed as being part of a broader “movement” (the issue of independence is less crucial when sourcing a section). Blueboar (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This would be fine with me, if we can find sources defining what "Wikimedia" is? According to the current article, it is short for "Wikimedia movement" (ergo the same issue). So do we have sources that give it a clear, different definition to what the article currently says? According to Wikimedia Foundation, "Wikimedia" is short for "Wikimedia Foundation". A dab page at Wikimedia might also be a workable solution. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article was previously titled Wikimedia:
at 10:08, 22 April 2016 Dreamyshade moved page Wikimedia to Wikimedia movement ("Wikimedia" sometimes refers to WMF; renaming to Wikimedia movement to be clear about purpose of article)
The etymology of the term is given in the article lead. It's a compound of wiki and media. Wikipedia is the most notable example of wikimedia. The movement creates and maintains the wikimedia. The Foundation, which is part of the movement, provides financial and technical support to the movement. The movement is not a part of the Foundation. — wbm1058 (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP per Piotrus, Andrew, others. Some folks may just be playing a silly political game here. Please don't waste people's time. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For those who asked for the page numbers in Reagle and Koerner for "Wikimedia movement" they are 239-240, 243, 246, 248. More importantly, the book takes the academic view of a movement engaging a wide variety of people in a whole constellation of activities, e.g. different projects such as Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, WikiProjects (e.g. on Wikipedia), affiliates such as Chapters, thematic organizations, separate organizations such as the Internet Archive, ArbComs (on several projects), etc. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Page numbers are all very well, but as has already been noted, what is required for this article (like any other aricle being discussed at AfD) is third-party sourcing. It would seem self-evident that the chapter you reference does not meet Wikipedia standards as a third-party source when discussing the 'Wikimedia movement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andy - you seem to be saying that anything written by anybody who ever worked for a related employer is not an independent source. That sounds like a made-up policy. How about anybody who was ever considered part of the movement? Nope, don't think so. This is a peer-reviewed paper in an academic publication. You can disagree with it's content (which you appear to do) but to say that it's not an independent view? Nope. Now this is about the 16th time you've cross-examined somebody you disagreed with on this AfD. Why are you pushing so hard? Please take a step back. You might even want to read the rest of my comment above. Maybe even try to consider that people other than you have something to say here. And quit wasting people's time with this. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So asking for in depth coverage of article content in third-party sources in an AfD discussion is a waste of time? Fascinating. Even if the source you cite were WP:RS, all it really indicates is that people use the phrase 'Wikipedia movement' without really defining it.
For the record, I didn't start this AfD. I don't think that nominating it for deletion without further discussion of the obvious issues was the wisest move, since the outcome was inevitable: a messy AfD discussion based around personal perceptions of what the term 'Wikimedia movement' is supposed to mean, rather than a cool-headed discussion of the broader issue of if and how Wikipedia should be describing itself and its contributors in an encyclopaedia that presents itself as a tertiary source. The article was nominated though, leaving me with little choice but to make my objections to this specific article as it stood, and its lack of use of independent sourcing in particular, plain.
As for disagreeing with content of that specific source, I've not really looked at it in depth beyond the chapter you cited, and even that only to the extent of confirming that the material on the pages cited isn't really very useful as a source for the article we are discussing. From a quick further skim I certainly don't disagree with at least one central premise of that chapter though. Aspiring to "build a Wikipedia that reflects the full breadth and depth of humanity" would seem a thoroughly worth objective. As would be tackling the marginalization of individuals and communities, and challenging the status quo. Which, to my mind, is best not done by making glib statements about a supposed 'movements' based on the prior perceptions of a single WMF project that has no authority whatsoever to speak out for others, as the article under AfD discussion here does. The English-language Wikipedia purporting to be a tertiary source on itself is questionable enough, but doing so in a manner that seemingly asserts its right to define a the motivations of every single contributor to each and every one of the WMFs many diverse projects as a mere extension of its own 'community' is worse still. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that argument would be equally valid to initiate the deletion of the articles Human and Earth, I guess. --denny vrandečić (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Maybe we can coax this guy into writing our human article. I hear he's a reliable, independent source. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced that WP:GNG has been met with WP:THREE sources. If three sources that each meet GNG can be provided, I will happily switch my !vote - ping me. BilledMammal (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching Google News I get plenty of results talking about the Wikimedia movement. Also, agreeing with Pundit and others. To be honest, I am surprised this isn't Snowball-closed. This doesn't mean the article cannot be improved. --denny vrandečić (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Denny; could you link three of those so that I can assess them for my own !vote? BilledMammal (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those search links seem to mostly bring up articles where the phrase "wikimedia movement" only appears in direct quotes from the Foundation. Could you link some of specific articles you mentioned? ApLundell (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The quote I'm seeing is On 6 April 2013 Wikimedia France, the local chapter of the Wikimedia movement that runs Wikipedia, released a press statement that it had allegedly been contacted by the Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieure (DCRI), France's domestic spy and security agency, which was unhappy with an article about Pierre-sur-Haute, a military radio base run by the French air force. Nothing in that source supports the idea of a "Wikimedia movement" as a social movement; it's used as a synonym for "the Wikimedia organization". I'd also call it a passing mention that fails to be significant coverage. XOR'easter (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreeing with Pundit and others and adding one more source to those already mentioned. --Kritzolina (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to analyse the source: It's a conference paper as part of a larger volume, and I found the specific piece here on Springer Link. The single author is "John Andersson, [email protected]", who is the "Executive Director of Wikimedia Sverige", a WMF Chapter. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many of the keep !voters have provided sources where the term is used, but virtually all of them only illustrate that the term is used by the Foundation to refer to its own volunteers. If "Wikipedia Movement" is only notable as a PR term used by the Foundation, it might as well just be a redirect to the Foundation. I believe this would have been uncontroversal for any other non-profit. ApLundell (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a term that the WMF uses in its own marketing, not an independently wiki-notable concept. XOR'easter (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smallbones, wbm1058, and others. I've always pictured the movement like, well this picture. The movement extends a little outside just the Wikimedia community to encompass the overlap with other folks working in free knowledge. Ckoerner (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That graphic, which doesn't even mention Wikipedia, not only is a long way from the mental map of this place that I carry around but explains a lot of why the Wikimedia foundation, where you work as a Movement Communications Specialist, thinks it can impose something called Code Enforcement Officers on Wikipedians, and would even think of that name as a serious position. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of WP:FORUMing this, that graphic concerns me, not least due to the level of overlap of "donors" with "philanthropic actors", and lack of overlap with "readers" and "editors" - the last could be for clarity, but even so... BilledMammal (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed two graphics from the article. As an informal organization, it can't be described with org charts, bubbles or anything of that nature. I suppose the section about the Foundation could be expanded to describe the Foundation's official view of the movement, if they have one. I'm bothered by my increasing perception that the WMF seeks donations on the premise of supporting the yellow stuff, but then in a sort of bait-and-switch spends money on the blue stuff. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, long history and clear secondary notability. The term and concept predate the Foundation, and WMF doesn't "own" the movement in any way. Among other things this is why the Wikimedia community logo is not trademarked. – SJ + 16:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to doubt someone who was on the board of trustees, but ... do you have a 3rd party source for that? I don't think anyone has actually proposed one yet. ApLundell (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even read the article before you comment here? The name "Wikimedia" was coined by American author Sheldon Rampton in a post to the English-language Wikipedia's mailing list in March 2003, three months after Wiktionary became the second wiki-based project hosted on Jimmy Wales' platform, and three months before the Wikimedia Foundation was announced and incorporated. This is primary-sourced: Rampton, Sheldon (March 16, 2003). "Wikipedia English-language mailing list message". Archived from the original on November 1, 2005. Retrieved July 11, 2017. but as I was reminded above, independent sources are only needed for notability, not to prove facts. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having the etymology for the word "Wikimedia" isn't the same as having evidence of an actual social movement. Inferring the latter from the former is synthesis, at best. XOR'easter (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What "movement"? Keep !votes need to be based on something more than the fond belief that we are part of something grand. XOR'easter (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back at the first "redirect" vote for a possible solution. Noting the December 2005 page move, we could move the Foundation article back to Wikimedia. That opens the door to covering the three topics Wikimedia, Wikimedia movement and Wikimedia Foundation in the same article. Or if there's too much material for a single article, then Wikimedia Foundation could be a summary-style subtopic of Wikimedia. Debian covers both the software and the project; Debian Project redirects to Debian as there is no need for a separate article about the Project. And nobody questions whether "the software" is a thing. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is a notable entity that meets WP:NORG. It should have its own article. We can't hijack the article of a notable thing (the WMF) just to be able to cover a non-notable thing (the Wikimedia movement). While I'm open to discussing other solutions, any solution that does an end run around our notability or core content policies should be a non-starter. I would also really appreciate it if any such proposals came with independent reliable sources to support, and if those sources were presented in a very clear manner (ie, not linking to search results or providing long lists of [questionable] source titles). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BTW everything valid here is already covered in Wikimedia Foundation, unsurprisingly:
So then your position is that all references to a "movement" should be removed from the Wikipedia Foundation article, as there is no movement, and "movement affiliates" are really Wikimedia Foundation affiliates? wbm1058 (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the point was that a) the content here is already covered elsewhere (thus there is nothing to merge); b) the conclusion of this AfD cannot be to hijack and repurpose an article about a notable thing because some don't want to delete an article about a non-notable thing. But since this AfD has lost focus several times, I should've kept my point more simple and just said: this is AfD where we decide whether articles are deleted or not, and the page title of Wikimedia Foundation can be decided via WP:RM on its talk page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you're OK with the Foundation hijacking the movement, but not OK with the movement hijacking the Foundation. wbm1058 (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in debating any internal project issues regarding the Wikimedia movement. I'm interested in discussing an article that is currently in mainspace violating our core content policies and misleading our readers. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're not interested in discussing another article that is currently in mainspace violating our core content policies and misleading our readers by claiming it supports and participates in a movement that no sources can be found to confirm even exists. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
