It is a fair question Emmanuel
Well, what you say is true. In short, if I summarize super briefly
1) According to Heather, the brand redefinition was a request from the
board back in 2015. But there is no mention in board meeting minutes and
two former board members do not remember this decision. Note: this was
in Lila time.
However, it seems indeed that the board confirmed its non-opposition to
the communication team to work on that topic in 2018:
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes/2018-11-9,10,11#Branding
Note that this does not appear to be a request from the board to the
staff, but rather a request from the staff to be allowed to explore.
2) Brand awareness survey done in 7 countries in 2017 showed poor
visibility and understanding of the wikimedia brand
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Brand_awareness,_attitudes,_and_usage_-_Executive_Summary
2) When a survey was done a bit later, the statistical results were
displayed in such a way that the case was made from the brand team that
there was very little opposition from the community
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communications%2FWikimedia_brands%2F2030_research_and_planning%2Fcommunity_review%2Fresults&type=revision&diff=19827063&oldid=19800238
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia#Updates_from_the_Foundation
Evidence was made that the statistical presentation was broken and
misleading.
Arguments from opponents to the change include the fact the board
members might have been mislead in believing there was no opposition
from the community, and thus approved a rebranding without correct context.
3) Following that situation, a RFC was launched by the community, and
show an overwelming opposition to replace Wikimedia with Wikipedia in
our orgs and projects name.
Note that RFC is opt-in only, so might over represent those who oppose
the rebranding. Hence the case made for the final survey to poll
community members about their position on the matter.
Those who want to further explore:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia
4) The Brand team continued its work. Extensive discussions followed,
with face to face brainstorming events to try to identify "good ideas".
And key argument to opponants was that it was still in discussion phase etc.
Brand network was created to better inform etc., give arguments in favor
of the change etc. (I joined it as representant of offline UG to keep
track of what was going on)
There was further information provided about a month ago during a public
meeting, revealing a collection of "words/directions"
There were repeated requests from the people following this topic, for
the final survey to include the "no change please" option. But this has
been dismissed repeatedly.
5) Then finally a new survey (the one I mentionned earlier) was proposed
a few days ago with a short list of options. The "no option" is not
proposed, and the three options include replacing wikimedia by wikipedia.
This is creating social unrest. Best person to know more about that is
Andrew Lih.
6) An executive statement was published 2 days ago, stating that a) this
rebranding was done per board request, and 2) the rename will happen
Quote: *"We should have been clearer: a rebrand will happen. This has
already been decided by the Board. The place where we seek consultation
and input is on what an optimal rebrand looks like, and what the path to
get there will be."*
To read full statement :
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Executive_statement
7) There is a boiling discussion on whether to set up a central banner
to invite participants to respond the survey, with community opposition
to set up the banner.
I have actually been contacted by some staff about this, who were
apparently trying to evaluate the level of risk of WMF staff to be
unsysoped if they decided the get over the community and activate the
banner anyway
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice/Request/Movement_Brand_naming_proposals
I am not sure the banner is live yet. At least, I see no banner myself.
It should have gone live on the 16th
8) Thus followed much discussion after the executive statement, on
telegram and on meta.
Probably central place is here :
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Executive_statement#A_call_for_Board_statements,_and_disappointment
APPARENTLY, a statement from the board is expected. Unless wrong, it has
not been published yet.
9) There is a meeting TONIGHT (21h UTC+2), community organized, on the
matter.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/All-Affiliates_Brand_Meeting
I'll attend and will try to summarize
Should you invest more time on the process ? Good question. I am asking
myself the same question. We have a few more days to reflect.
Florence
Le 18/06/2020 à 09:24, Emmanuel Engelhart a écrit :
Hi Florence
Thank you for keeping us up-to-date with this process.
On 17.06.20 20:08, Florence Devouard wrote:
So, the Brand Team is moving on and has announced a short list of
proposals to rename Wikimedia Foundation, UG and such to remove the word
"Wikimedia"
I hope I'm properly informed, but AFAIK there is an extremely strong
majority (almost a consensus) within the community against replacing
"Wikimedia" with "Wikipedia" in our orgs naming. cf.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia
But it seems that the process continues without taking in account the
result of this survey. To me, this seems not fair.
Considering that offline activities are booming, in particular because
of the Covid19 pandemic and therefore we have a lot to do anyway, I
wonder why exactly I should invest more time on this process?!
Regards
Emmanuel
_______________________________________________
Offline-l mailing list
Offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/offline-l
