Hi Thank you Florence & Sj for your feedbacks and additional information.
This was necessary to me but they confirm my personal primary feelings. I had the belief that the current WMF mgmt (board?) would at least avoid this kind of mistake. I have to admit I was wrong. It looks like there is a kind of pattern at the WMF which transcends the ages & persons. I have invested 20mn to fill the survey anyway. Emmanuel On 21.06.20 19:40, Florence Devouard wrote: > 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 >> -- Kiwix - Wikipedia Offline & more * Web: https://kiwix.org/ * Twitter: https://twitter.com/KiwixOffline * Wiki: https://wiki.kiwix.org/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Offline-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/offline-l
