Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Pete Forsyth]

My apologies for the error, the "Governance Wiki" URL is:

foundation.wikimedia.org

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 9:15 AM Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> As a former, active admin on Meta (but not a current one), I'd like to
> make a few points. I have also not been heavily involved in this rebranding
> project, though I should disclose that I've taken a position against it.
>
> 1. A page such as this one can play one or both of two roles: (a) a FAQ
> about the aims and philosophy of the WMF's rebranding project, and (b) a
> FAQ about the general concept of rebranding, and the community's views on
> the matter.
>
> 2. It seems reasonable to me that WMF staff have authority over (a), but
> certainly not over (b).
>
> 3. WMF staff could also, if they so choose, use the Wikimedia "governance
> wiki" (wiki.wikimediafoundation.org) to host (a); so the choice to post
> it on Meta Wiki itself might be questioned.
>
> 4. In an ideal world, community views on as important a topic as
> rebranding would be clearly synthesized into a document like a FAQ first,
> to a point where people advocating for various positions could agree that
> the basic information presented is accurate. (This is more or less the
> consensus process we use on Wikipedia and other projects.) Once that is
> done, it would be a fairly trivial matter for WMF to construct a FAQ,
> echoing or even incorporating the language already agreed to, that would
> both express its own objectives and views, and also honor opposing views.
>
> 5. These points, in my view, all point to the position expressed in recent
> days and weeks by many community members, i.e., that this process has been
> conducted in a way that is either too fast, or too poorly structured, or
> both, to establish a solid (excuse the word) foundation for a good decision.
>
> As a short comment on this disagreement, though, I think WMF staff has two
> simple options: (a) Move the FAQ to a site clearly under its own control,
> like the "Governance Wiki," or (b) permit the Meta Wiki community to assess
> the neutrality of the page. Neither option seems like a particularly bad
> one to me, so I'm a little surprised to see this spilling over onto the
> mailing list.
>
> -Pete
> --
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 3:00 PM Quim Gil  wrote:
>
>> Hi Tito,
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:01 PM Tito Dutta  wrote:
>>
>> > Greetings,
>> > There was a continuous practice of citing/overciting the FAQ page,
>> > sometimes without answering the questions directly. This happened more
>> on
>> > the other mailing lists (For example:
>> >
>> >
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaindia-l/2020-April/014589.html
>> > )
>> >
>> > Now, the /FAQ page, which was being continuously referred to, has a
>> > "neutrality of this page is disputed" tag
>> >
>> >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/FAQ=20200949
>> > .
>> > It earlier had an essay tag. I have read its talk page.
>> >
>> > Until things are settled, which page is recommended (if there is any)?
>> >
>> > (Not to anyone in specific, a question/thought in general)
>> >
>>
>> As the person who published that notice...
>>
>> I think the FAQ is an ok place to find answers to questions. The
>> Neutrality
>> notice was a short term solution to improve previous versions of notices
>> placed there. If anyone wonders about why these notices, you can find
>> several related discussions in the Talk page, and the edit history is also
>> quite telling. That page has been a tense corner for months.
>>
>> Beyond the specific scope of the Brand project, a point of contention has
>> been and continues to be more Meta: whether a project team (of any kind,
>> not just a Foundation team) can explain a project in their terms
>> (including
>> FAQs) or anyone can edit any page in Meta (including modifying, deleting
>> or
>> reverting answers from the project team in the project FAQ). The topic is
>> more nuanced and complex than this, I bet all parties are quite frustrated
>> by now, and this is probably a good meta conversation to have in Meta at
>> some point, detached from specific projects and heated discussions.
>>
>> Back to this FAQ, this week the team has prepared updates to that page.
>> Tito, you asking here is an extra motivation to proceed.  :)  If anyone
>> wants to help, watching the page and providing alternative views if new
>> discussions arise is a good way to contribute to the improvement of the
>> FAQ
>> and hopefully the removal of that notice soon.
>>
>> --
>> Quim Gil (he/him)
>> Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Pete Forsyth]

As a former, active admin on Meta (but not a current one), I'd like to make
a few points. I have also not been heavily involved in this rebranding
project, though I should disclose that I've taken a position against it.

1. A page such as this one can play one or both of two roles: (a) a FAQ
about the aims and philosophy of the WMF's rebranding project, and (b) a
FAQ about the general concept of rebranding, and the community's views on
the matter.

2. It seems reasonable to me that WMF staff have authority over (a), but
certainly not over (b).

3. WMF staff could also, if they so choose, use the Wikimedia "governance
wiki" (wiki.wikimediafoundation.org) to host (a); so the choice to post it
on Meta Wiki itself might be questioned.

4. In an ideal world, community views on as important a topic as rebranding
would be clearly synthesized into a document like a FAQ first, to a point
where people advocating for various positions could agree that the basic
information presented is accurate. (This is more or less the consensus
process we use on Wikipedia and other projects.) Once that is done, it
would be a fairly trivial matter for WMF to construct a FAQ, echoing or
even incorporating the language already agreed to, that would both express
its own objectives and views, and also honor opposing views.

5. These points, in my view, all point to the position expressed in recent
days and weeks by many community members, i.e., that this process has been
conducted in a way that is either too fast, or too poorly structured, or
both, to establish a solid (excuse the word) foundation for a good decision.

As a short comment on this disagreement, though, I think WMF staff has two
simple options: (a) Move the FAQ to a site clearly under its own control,
like the "Governance Wiki," or (b) permit the Meta Wiki community to assess
the neutrality of the page. Neither option seems like a particularly bad
one to me, so I'm a little surprised to see this spilling over onto the
mailing list.

-Pete
--
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 3:00 PM Quim Gil  wrote:

> Hi Tito,
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:01 PM Tito Dutta  wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> > There was a continuous practice of citing/overciting the FAQ page,
> > sometimes without answering the questions directly. This happened more on
> > the other mailing lists (For example:
> >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaindia-l/2020-April/014589.html
> > )
> >
> > Now, the /FAQ page, which was being continuously referred to, has a
> > "neutrality of this page is disputed" tag
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/FAQ=20200949
> > .
> > It earlier had an essay tag. I have read its talk page.
> >
> > Until things are settled, which page is recommended (if there is any)?
> >
> > (Not to anyone in specific, a question/thought in general)
> >
>
> As the person who published that notice...
>
> I think the FAQ is an ok place to find answers to questions. The Neutrality
> notice was a short term solution to improve previous versions of notices
> placed there. If anyone wonders about why these notices, you can find
> several related discussions in the Talk page, and the edit history is also
> quite telling. That page has been a tense corner for months.
>
> Beyond the specific scope of the Brand project, a point of contention has
> been and continues to be more Meta: whether a project team (of any kind,
> not just a Foundation team) can explain a project in their terms (including
> FAQs) or anyone can edit any page in Meta (including modifying, deleting or
> reverting answers from the project team in the project FAQ). The topic is
> more nuanced and complex than this, I bet all parties are quite frustrated
> by now, and this is probably a good meta conversation to have in Meta at
> some point, detached from specific projects and heated discussions.
>
> Back to this FAQ, this week the team has prepared updates to that page.
> Tito, you asking here is an extra motivation to proceed.  :)  If anyone
> wants to help, watching the page and providing alternative views if new
> discussions arise is a good way to contribute to the improvement of the FAQ
> and hopefully the removal of that notice soon.
>
> --
> Quim Gil (he/him)
> Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Quim Gil]

Hi Tito,

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:01 PM Tito Dutta  wrote:

> Greetings,
> There was a continuous practice of citing/overciting the FAQ page,
> sometimes without answering the questions directly. This happened more on
> the other mailing lists (For example:
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaindia-l/2020-April/014589.html
> )
>
> Now, the /FAQ page, which was being continuously referred to, has a
> "neutrality of this page is disputed" tag
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/FAQ=20200949
> .
> It earlier had an essay tag. I have read its talk page.
>
> Until things are settled, which page is recommended (if there is any)?
>
> (Not to anyone in specific, a question/thought in general)
>

As the person who published that notice...

I think the FAQ is an ok place to find answers to questions. The Neutrality
notice was a short term solution to improve previous versions of notices
placed there. If anyone wonders about why these notices, you can find
several related discussions in the Talk page, and the edit history is also
quite telling. That page has been a tense corner for months.

Beyond the specific scope of the Brand project, a point of contention has
been and continues to be more Meta: whether a project team (of any kind,
not just a Foundation team) can explain a project in their terms (including
FAQs) or anyone can edit any page in Meta (including modifying, deleting or
reverting answers from the project team in the project FAQ). The topic is
more nuanced and complex than this, I bet all parties are quite frustrated
by now, and this is probably a good meta conversation to have in Meta at
some point, detached from specific projects and heated discussions.

Back to this FAQ, this week the team has prepared updates to that page.
Tito, you asking here is an extra motivation to proceed.  :)  If anyone
wants to help, watching the page and providing alternative views if new
discussions arise is a good way to contribute to the improvement of the FAQ
and hopefully the removal of that notice soon.

-- 
Quim Gil (he/him)
Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Tito Dutta]

>>> > That's all for now, with regards, and good wishes during the global
>>> > pandemic time,
>>> > User:Titodutta
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 14:19, Samir Elsharbaty <
>>> selsharb...@wikimedia.org>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Hi, the Brand team has been watching the RfC and has written a
>>> summary
>>> > > about it [1] that was shared both in the RfC [2] and the project
>>> page [3]
>>> > > in Meta. The team has integrated the feedback of the RfC in the
>>> development
>>> > > process, just as we did with the activities organized by the project
>>> > > itself.
>>> > >
>>> > > The RfC is covered in the main project page as well as in the FAQ
>>> [4]. The
>>> > > RfC has been a recurrent topic of discussion in the Brand project
>>> talk page
>>> > > [5], where we are answering questions and discussing topics whenever
>>> they
>>> > > are posted. We recommend you to have a look at these updates before
>>> making
>>> > > further conclusions here.
>>> > >
>>> > > The RfC is about the use of the word “Wikipedia” in the name of the
>>> > > Foundation, and by extension the names of affiliates were discussed
>>> as
>>> > > well. The project team has clarified that many options for a naming
>>> > > convention are being explored. While having Wikipedia as a central
>>> concept
>>> > > is a project requirement, It is very unlikely that any naming
>>> convention
>>> > > proposal will be based on a simple substitution of the word
>>> "Wikimedia"
>>> > > with the word "Wikipedia". Brand systems offer many more
>>> possibilities.
>>> > >
>>> > > Another important point to clarify is that the proposals for naming
>>> > > conventions haven’t been defined yet. According to the project
>>> timeline
>>> > > [6], several proposals for a naming convention will be shared with
>>> the
>>> > > communities for feedback in May, at the earliest. At the end of this
>>> > > review, one proposal will be selected and refined. You can check the
>>> > > timeline to learn about further phases with public reviews before
>>> the full
>>> > > proposal for a brand system is presented to the Wikimedia Foundation
>>> > > leadership and the Board.
>>> > >
>>> > > [1]
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/RfC_Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia
>>> > >
>>> > > [2]
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia#Report_about_this_RfC_by_the_Brand_Project_team
>>> > >
>>> > > [3]
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
>>> > >
>>> > > [4]
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/FAQ
>>> > >
>>> > > [5]
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Samir Elsharbaty (he/him)
>>> > >
>>> > > Community Brand and Marketing coordinator
>>> > >
>>> > > Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 1:12 AM David Gerard 
>>> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > Yes. Who's the person telling Samir to post this stuff, which comes
>>> > > > across as aggressively ignoring all feedback to date? Could we
>>> have a
>>> > > > word with them here?
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > - d.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 14:12, Peter Southwood
>>> > > >  wrote:
>>> > > > >
&

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Tito Dutta]

.
>> > >
>> > > The RfC is about the use of the word “Wikipedia” in the name of the
>> > > Foundation, and by extension the names of affiliates were discussed as
>> > > well. The project team has clarified that many options for a naming
>> > > convention are being explored. While having Wikipedia as a central
>> concept
>> > > is a project requirement, It is very unlikely that any naming
>> convention
>> > > proposal will be based on a simple substitution of the word
>> "Wikimedia"
>> > > with the word "Wikipedia". Brand systems offer many more
>> possibilities.
>> > >
>> > > Another important point to clarify is that the proposals for naming
>> > > conventions haven’t been defined yet. According to the project
>> timeline
>> > > [6], several proposals for a naming convention will be shared with the
>> > > communities for feedback in May, at the earliest. At the end of this
>> > > review, one proposal will be selected and refined. You can check the
>> > > timeline to learn about further phases with public reviews before the
>> full
>> > > proposal for a brand system is presented to the Wikimedia Foundation
>> > > leadership and the Board.
>> > >
>> > > [1]
>> > >
>> > >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/RfC_Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia
>> > >
>> > > [2]
>> > >
>> > >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia#Report_about_this_RfC_by_the_Brand_Project_team
>> > >
>> > > [3]
>> > >
>> > >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
>> > >
>> > > [4]
>> > >
>> > >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/FAQ
>> > >
>> > > [5]
>> > >
>> > >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Samir Elsharbaty (he/him)
>> > >
>> > > Community Brand and Marketing coordinator
>> > >
>> > > Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 1:12 AM David Gerard 
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Yes. Who's the person telling Samir to post this stuff, which comes
>> > > > across as aggressively ignoring all feedback to date? Could we have
>> a
>> > > > word with them here?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > - d.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 14:12, Peter Southwood
>> > > >  wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > When you speak for someone who is hard of listening, it is an
>> > > > occupational hazard that you will be shouted at occasionally by
>> those
>> > > whose
>> > > > voices are being ignored. It is not necessarily anything personal,
>> just
>> > > > part of the heat in the kitchen.
>> > > > > Cheers,
>> > > > > Peter
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -Original Message-
>> > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
>> On
>> > > > Behalf Of Yaroslav Blanter
>> > > > > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 11:28 AM
>> > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a
>> movement?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > In all honesty, this should not have been directed at Samir. I do
>> not
>> > > > think
>> > > > > he has the authority to stop the process. And whoever has probably
>> > > spends
>> > > > > more time in Twitter that in Wikimedia projects.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Best
>> > > > > Yaroslav
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 11:12 AM Tito Dutta 
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > There is something called [[WP:IDHT,]] i.e. I didn

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What you prove is that we maintain a static artifact that does improve with
time. What you prove with your reply is that you do not care for the
mission, for the quality of Wikipedia but only care to maintain a status
quo that is no longer good enough.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 23:16, Todd Allen  wrote:

> There certainly is a lot to reflect on, isn't there?
>
> Maybe you can do some reflecting on the fact that those "long-time
> contributors" were, in many cases, working on Wikipedia before most people
> had ever even heard of it (when I first started working on it, "What's
> Wikipedia?" would be a question I was often asked if I'd mention it;
> haven't heard that for a while though), and have been working to build,
> maintain, and improve it ever since. So maybe there's a reason we care a
> great deal about it.
>
> And maybe there's a good reason to listen to the people who literally built
> the thing, made it into what it is, and still day to day keep it going.
> Maybe we know what we're doing. I think we rather proved it.
>
> Todd
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 2:00 PM Gerard Meijssen  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > When I read something like this, it takes me aback. Yes, people may have
> an
> > opinion, they may even express it and they even may be wrong. Who cares
> > really. There is enough to dislike in branding, we are not cattle. From a
> > marketing perspective there may be a point. The point would be to bring
> all
> > that we do together, bring it together so that what it is we are and what
> > is we do better understood by an audience, an audience that we want to
> > entice to like us enough to become part of our Wikimedia movement.
> >
> > The problem is that the "long time contributors" don't like change. They
> > have invested so much in whatever it is they think makes our projects
> work
> > that they do not see the forest from the trees. They forget what our
> > primary aim, is and fail to appreciate that all conventions are there to
> > support the aim of sharing in the sum of all knowledge. This week
> Wikipedia
> > administrators killed off the ListeriaBot because it defied a
> convention. A
> > convention that they could not explain to me does harm to our public. A
> > convention that exists because it was conceded to English Wikipedia that
> > they could have non free images exclusive to its project. When challenged
> > that they do not care about Wikipedia's quality, that manually maintained
> > lists average out to be not as well maintained as Listeria list there was
> > silence. They did not care because it did not address their need that
> their
> > convention had to prevail.
> >
> > "Long time contributors", administrators are the ones expecting others to
> > share their sentiment about everything what is bad. I don't. Katherine
> > Maher brought an end to a period of stagnation. My impression is that at
> > the Wikimedia Foundation things look up. I love it that the WMF wants to
> > expand and I totally agree that English Wikipedia, its best known
> product,
> > the brand that is known by many is exactly what is not bringing us
> > together.
> >
> > I prefer people like Mackenzie Lemieux or Jess Wade any time over the
> "long
> > time contributors".. PS with a blog going back 15 years, with 2,606,298
> > edits I qualify as a long time contributor..
> >
> > So if your opinions are as good as the reflections you have on the
> quality
> > of Wikipedia, I do not care about your opinions. By my calculations there
> > is on average error rate of 4% in lists because of false friends. Magnus
> > blogged how manually maintained list are anything but well maintained
> > lists. The key point of branding in the marketing sense is that it is to
> > bring out the best of what is on offer.
> >
> > The basis of what we have on offer is in what we aim to achieve and, for
> me
> > our aim is to share in the sum of the knowledge that is available to us.
> > Everything that is in its way of achieving this needs reflection and imho
> > there is a lot to reflect.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 18:59, MZMcBride  wrote:
> >
> > > David Gerard wrote:
> > > >
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes/2018-11-9,10,11#Branding
> > > >
> > > >So this has been dictated from above - the "community consultation" is
> > > >window dressing for a decision that's long been made.
> > > >
> > > >Hence the nonsensical claims of massive community support by fiddling
> > > >the numbers, employing literal wiki spammers to do the consulting,
> > > >etc.
> > >
> > > Wikimedia Foundation Inc. is bad. There are dozens of examples
> > > illustrating why this is true, but this forcible rebranding is a
> > > particularly good demonstration of the rot.
> > >
> > > The people most directly responsible here are Katherine Maher and
> Heather
> > > Walls. They're both subscribed to this mailing list, they both
> understand
> > > that this decision would upset long-time 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Todd Allen]

There certainly is a lot to reflect on, isn't there?

Maybe you can do some reflecting on the fact that those "long-time
contributors" were, in many cases, working on Wikipedia before most people
had ever even heard of it (when I first started working on it, "What's
Wikipedia?" would be a question I was often asked if I'd mention it;
haven't heard that for a while though), and have been working to build,
maintain, and improve it ever since. So maybe there's a reason we care a
great deal about it.

And maybe there's a good reason to listen to the people who literally built
the thing, made it into what it is, and still day to day keep it going.
Maybe we know what we're doing. I think we rather proved it.

Todd

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 2:00 PM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> When I read something like this, it takes me aback. Yes, people may have an
> opinion, they may even express it and they even may be wrong. Who cares
> really. There is enough to dislike in branding, we are not cattle. From a
> marketing perspective there may be a point. The point would be to bring all
> that we do together, bring it together so that what it is we are and what
> is we do better understood by an audience, an audience that we want to
> entice to like us enough to become part of our Wikimedia movement.
>
> The problem is that the "long time contributors" don't like change. They
> have invested so much in whatever it is they think makes our projects work
> that they do not see the forest from the trees. They forget what our
> primary aim, is and fail to appreciate that all conventions are there to
> support the aim of sharing in the sum of all knowledge. This week Wikipedia
> administrators killed off the ListeriaBot because it defied a convention. A
> convention that they could not explain to me does harm to our public. A
> convention that exists because it was conceded to English Wikipedia that
> they could have non free images exclusive to its project. When challenged
> that they do not care about Wikipedia's quality, that manually maintained
> lists average out to be not as well maintained as Listeria list there was
> silence. They did not care because it did not address their need that their
> convention had to prevail.
>
> "Long time contributors", administrators are the ones expecting others to
> share their sentiment about everything what is bad. I don't. Katherine
> Maher brought an end to a period of stagnation. My impression is that at
> the Wikimedia Foundation things look up. I love it that the WMF wants to
> expand and I totally agree that English Wikipedia, its best known product,
> the brand that is known by many is exactly what is not bringing us
> together.
>
> I prefer people like Mackenzie Lemieux or Jess Wade any time over the "long
> time contributors".. PS with a blog going back 15 years, with 2,606,298
> edits I qualify as a long time contributor..
>
> So if your opinions are as good as the reflections you have on the quality
> of Wikipedia, I do not care about your opinions. By my calculations there
> is on average error rate of 4% in lists because of false friends. Magnus
> blogged how manually maintained list are anything but well maintained
> lists. The key point of branding in the marketing sense is that it is to
> bring out the best of what is on offer.
>
> The basis of what we have on offer is in what we aim to achieve and, for me
> our aim is to share in the sum of the knowledge that is available to us.
> Everything that is in its way of achieving this needs reflection and imho
> there is a lot to reflect.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 18:59, MZMcBride  wrote:
>
> > David Gerard wrote:
> > >https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes/2018-11-9,10,11#Branding
> > >
> > >So this has been dictated from above - the "community consultation" is
> > >window dressing for a decision that's long been made.
> > >
> > >Hence the nonsensical claims of massive community support by fiddling
> > >the numbers, employing literal wiki spammers to do the consulting,
> > >etc.
> >
> > Wikimedia Foundation Inc. is bad. There are dozens of examples
> > illustrating why this is true, but this forcible rebranding is a
> > particularly good demonstration of the rot.
> >
> > The people most directly responsible here are Katherine Maher and Heather
> > Walls. They're both subscribed to this mailing list, they both understand
> > that this decision would upset long-time contributors, and they both
> > simply decided to ignore any complaints in favor of attempting to siphon
> > more money from donors and force their "vision" on the broader movement.
> > You don't see either of them defending themselves or their actions here
> > for a reason. They didn't both forget how e-mail works or how the wikis
> > work, they've intentionally chosen to plug their ears and march forward.
> >
> > What's more offensive, in my opinion, than this forcible rebranding
> effort
> > is that they've spent and will 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When I read something like this, it takes me aback. Yes, people may have an
opinion, they may even express it and they even may be wrong. Who cares
really. There is enough to dislike in branding, we are not cattle. From a
marketing perspective there may be a point. The point would be to bring all
that we do together, bring it together so that what it is we are and what
is we do better understood by an audience, an audience that we want to
entice to like us enough to become part of our Wikimedia movement.

The problem is that the "long time contributors" don't like change. They
have invested so much in whatever it is they think makes our projects work
that they do not see the forest from the trees. They forget what our
primary aim, is and fail to appreciate that all conventions are there to
support the aim of sharing in the sum of all knowledge. This week Wikipedia
administrators killed off the ListeriaBot because it defied a convention. A
convention that they could not explain to me does harm to our public. A
convention that exists because it was conceded to English Wikipedia that
they could have non free images exclusive to its project. When challenged
that they do not care about Wikipedia's quality, that manually maintained
lists average out to be not as well maintained as Listeria list there was
silence. They did not care because it did not address their need that their
convention had to prevail.

"Long time contributors", administrators are the ones expecting others to
share their sentiment about everything what is bad. I don't. Katherine
Maher brought an end to a period of stagnation. My impression is that at
the Wikimedia Foundation things look up. I love it that the WMF wants to
expand and I totally agree that English Wikipedia, its best known product,
the brand that is known by many is exactly what is not bringing us
together.

I prefer people like Mackenzie Lemieux or Jess Wade any time over the "long
time contributors".. PS with a blog going back 15 years, with 2,606,298
edits I qualify as a long time contributor..

So if your opinions are as good as the reflections you have on the quality
of Wikipedia, I do not care about your opinions. By my calculations there
is on average error rate of 4% in lists because of false friends. Magnus
blogged how manually maintained list are anything but well maintained
lists. The key point of branding in the marketing sense is that it is to
bring out the best of what is on offer.

The basis of what we have on offer is in what we aim to achieve and, for me
our aim is to share in the sum of the knowledge that is available to us.
Everything that is in its way of achieving this needs reflection and imho
there is a lot to reflect.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 18:59, MZMcBride  wrote:

> David Gerard wrote:
> >https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes/2018-11-9,10,11#Branding
> >
> >So this has been dictated from above - the "community consultation" is
> >window dressing for a decision that's long been made.
> >
> >Hence the nonsensical claims of massive community support by fiddling
> >the numbers, employing literal wiki spammers to do the consulting,
> >etc.
>
> Wikimedia Foundation Inc. is bad. There are dozens of examples
> illustrating why this is true, but this forcible rebranding is a
> particularly good demonstration of the rot.
>
> The people most directly responsible here are Katherine Maher and Heather
> Walls. They're both subscribed to this mailing list, they both understand
> that this decision would upset long-time contributors, and they both
> simply decided to ignore any complaints in favor of attempting to siphon
> more money from donors and force their "vision" on the broader movement.
> You don't see either of them defending themselves or their actions here
> for a reason. They didn't both forget how e-mail works or how the wikis
> work, they've intentionally chosen to plug their ears and march forward.
>
> What's more offensive, in my opinion, than this forcible rebranding effort
> is that they've spent and will continue to spend hundreds of thousands of
> dollars on it. It would be bad enough to make this unilateral decision and
> implement it with the existing bloated staff, but instead they've hired
> agencies and consultants and wasted additional hundreds of thousands of
> dollars in donor money on this sham exercise.
>
> But don't worry, highly deceptive advertising is back on the projects, in
> mid-April, to ensure continued funding of this and other charades.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Michael Peel]

I think it’s important to realise that there *is* a big issue here. How we want 
to be perceived and how we are actually perceived are *not* the same.

We can argue about WMF vs. community as much as we want, but that won’t change 
reality.

Please can we focus on how we solve the problem instead of internal bickering? 
(This applies equally to the community and the brand project.)

Thanks,
Mike

> On 15 Apr 2020, at 20:05, Pine W  wrote:
> 
> Hmm. As Deskana has pointed out in the past, painting everyone at WMF
> with the same brush is problematic. It can demoralize people who do
> good work.
> 
> At the same time, it's difficult to escape the conclusion that the
> same problems occur at WMF year after year. As the saying goes, "The
> more things change, the more they stay the same." I think that the WMF
> Board is a part of the problem. In the meantime, the best that the
> rest of us can do is to continue to make our opinions known and try to
> be productive.
> 
> I'm reluctant to call for changes of individually identifiable staff
> without knowing more about the facts of this situation. I simply don't
> have enough information.
> 
> I'm not aware of any large organization which doesn't have recurring
> problems. WMF is not unique in this regard. That's not an excuse, but
> I think that it's also important to be realistic.
> 
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Pine W]

Hmm. As Deskana has pointed out in the past, painting everyone at WMF
with the same brush is problematic. It can demoralize people who do
good work.

At the same time, it's difficult to escape the conclusion that the
same problems occur at WMF year after year. As the saying goes, "The
more things change, the more they stay the same." I think that the WMF
Board is a part of the problem. In the meantime, the best that the
rest of us can do is to continue to make our opinions known and try to
be productive.

I'm reluctant to call for changes of individually identifiable staff
without knowing more about the facts of this situation. I simply don't
have enough information.

I'm not aware of any large organization which doesn't have recurring
problems. WMF is not unique in this regard. That's not an excuse, but
I think that it's also important to be realistic.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[MZMcBride]

David Gerard wrote:
>https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes/2018-11-9,10,11#Branding
>
>So this has been dictated from above - the "community consultation" is
>window dressing for a decision that's long been made.
>
>Hence the nonsensical claims of massive community support by fiddling
>the numbers, employing literal wiki spammers to do the consulting,
>etc.

Wikimedia Foundation Inc. is bad. There are dozens of examples
illustrating why this is true, but this forcible rebranding is a
particularly good demonstration of the rot.

The people most directly responsible here are Katherine Maher and Heather
Walls. They're both subscribed to this mailing list, they both understand
that this decision would upset long-time contributors, and they both
simply decided to ignore any complaints in favor of attempting to siphon
more money from donors and force their "vision" on the broader movement.
You don't see either of them defending themselves or their actions here
for a reason. They didn't both forget how e-mail works or how the wikis
work, they've intentionally chosen to plug their ears and march forward.

What's more offensive, in my opinion, than this forcible rebranding effort
is that they've spent and will continue to spend hundreds of thousands of
dollars on it. It would be bad enough to make this unilateral decision and
implement it with the existing bloated staff, but instead they've hired
agencies and consultants and wasted additional hundreds of thousands of
dollars in donor money on this sham exercise.

But don't worry, highly deceptive advertising is back on the projects, in
mid-April, to ensure continued funding of this and other charades.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Fæ]

A LOT of people worldwide are dying and have died today, some are
people we know or love, and this is the important and urgent
"community branding" project that WMF management wants to spend their
employee time and goodwill free volunteer effort on. Really?

It seems fair to repost my statement from a month ago, perhaps by
volunteers in the real "community" just keeping on repeating,
repeating and repeating how this is pointless and damaging, eventually
some of the management team might accidentally read some of the
negative feedback through their "supportive criticism" rose-tinted
jargon bubbles:

"WMF management, stop flushing away the donor's money on this, please.
It has already been overwhelmingly rejected, failed, and not firmly
ending it makes you appear unable to stop paying consultants to make
up more marketing jargon nonsense to justify their invoice." (14 March
2020)

How about you cancel the branding consultancy and direct 100% of that
pile of cash towards the range of Wikimedia Covid-19 projects to
create great factual content to combat commercial lobbying and fake
news, the type of fake news we see promoted by the President of the
United States every day in the global media?

Thanks!
Fae

On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 09:49, Samir Elsharbaty
 wrote:
>
> Hi, the Brand team has been watching the RfC and has written a summary
> about it [1] that was shared both in the RfC [2] and the project page [3]
> in Meta. The team has integrated the feedback of the RfC in the development
> process, just as we did with the activities organized by the project
> itself.
...

> Samir Elsharbaty (he/him)
> Community Brand and Marketing coordinator
> Wikimedia Foundation 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[David Gerard]

gt; > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 14:19, Samir Elsharbaty <
> > selsharb...@wikimedia.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi, the Brand team has been watching the RfC and has written a summary
> > > > about it [1] that was shared both in the RfC [2] and the project page
> > [3]
> > > > in Meta. The team has integrated the feedback of the RfC in the
> > development
> > > > process, just as we did with the activities organized by the project
> > > > itself.
> > > >
> > > > The RfC is covered in the main project page as well as in the FAQ [4].
> > The
> > > > RfC has been a recurrent topic of discussion in the Brand project talk
> > page
> > > > [5], where we are answering questions and discussing topics whenever
> > they
> > > > are posted. We recommend you to have a look at these updates before
> > making
> > > > further conclusions here.
> > > >
> > > > The RfC is about the use of the word “Wikipedia” in the name of the
> > > > Foundation, and by extension the names of affiliates were discussed as
> > > > well. The project team has clarified that many options for a naming
> > > > convention are being explored. While having Wikipedia as a central
> > concept
> > > > is a project requirement, It is very unlikely that any naming
> > convention
> > > > proposal will be based on a simple substitution of the word "Wikimedia"
> > > > with the word "Wikipedia". Brand systems offer many more possibilities.
> > > >
> > > > Another important point to clarify is that the proposals for naming
> > > > conventions haven’t been defined yet. According to the project timeline
> > > > [6], several proposals for a naming convention will be shared with the
> > > > communities for feedback in May, at the earliest. At the end of this
> > > > review, one proposal will be selected and refined. You can check the
> > > > timeline to learn about further phases with public reviews before the
> > full
> > > > proposal for a brand system is presented to the Wikimedia Foundation
> > > > leadership and the Board.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/RfC_Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia
> > > >
> > > > [2]
> > > >
> > > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia#Report_about_this_RfC_by_the_Brand_Project_team
> > > >
> > > > [3]
> > > >
> > > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
> > > >
> > > > [4]
> > > >
> > > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/FAQ
> > > >
> > > > [5]
> > > >
> > > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Samir Elsharbaty (he/him)
> > > >
> > > > Community Brand and Marketing coordinator
> > > >
> > > > Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 1:12 AM David Gerard 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yes. Who's the person telling Samir to post this stuff, which comes
> > > > > across as aggressively ignoring all feedback to date? Could we have a
> > > > > word with them here?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - d.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 14:12, Peter Southwood
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When you speak for someone who is hard of listening, it is an
> > > > > occupational hazard that you will be shouted at occasionally by those
> > > > whose
> > > > > voices are being ignored. It is not necessarily anything personal,
> > just
> > > > > part of the heat in the kitchen.
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Peter
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Origin

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Tito Dutta]

ipedia” in the name of the
> > > Foundation, and by extension the names of affiliates were discussed as
> > > well. The project team has clarified that many options for a naming
> > > convention are being explored. While having Wikipedia as a central
> concept
> > > is a project requirement, It is very unlikely that any naming
> convention
> > > proposal will be based on a simple substitution of the word "Wikimedia"
> > > with the word "Wikipedia". Brand systems offer many more possibilities.
> > >
> > > Another important point to clarify is that the proposals for naming
> > > conventions haven’t been defined yet. According to the project timeline
> > > [6], several proposals for a naming convention will be shared with the
> > > communities for feedback in May, at the earliest. At the end of this
> > > review, one proposal will be selected and refined. You can check the
> > > timeline to learn about further phases with public reviews before the
> full
> > > proposal for a brand system is presented to the Wikimedia Foundation
> > > leadership and the Board.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/RfC_Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia
> > >
> > > [2]
> > >
> > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia#Report_about_this_RfC_by_the_Brand_Project_team
> > >
> > > [3]
> > >
> > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
> > >
> > > [4]
> > >
> > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/FAQ
> > >
> > > [5]
> > >
> > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Samir Elsharbaty (he/him)
> > >
> > > Community Brand and Marketing coordinator
> > >
> > > Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 1:12 AM David Gerard 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes. Who's the person telling Samir to post this stuff, which comes
> > > > across as aggressively ignoring all feedback to date? Could we have a
> > > > word with them here?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - d.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 14:12, Peter Southwood
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > When you speak for someone who is hard of listening, it is an
> > > > occupational hazard that you will be shouted at occasionally by those
> > > whose
> > > > voices are being ignored. It is not necessarily anything personal,
> just
> > > > part of the heat in the kitchen.
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Peter
> > > > >
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On
> > > > Behalf Of Yaroslav Blanter
> > > > > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 11:28 AM
> > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
> > > > >
> > > > > In all honesty, this should not have been directed at Samir. I do
> not
> > > > think
> > > > > he has the authority to stop the process. And whoever has probably
> > > spends
> > > > > more time in Twitter that in Wikimedia projects.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best
> > > > > Yaroslav
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 11:12 AM Tito Dutta 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > There is something called [[WP:IDHT,]] i.e. I didn't hear that.
> > > > > > No matter how many times, how many people (90% in the RFC)
> speak, I
> > > > just
> > > > > > didn't hear that.
> > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > (Comment in personal capacity)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 00:15, Samir Elsharbaty <
> > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[David Gerard]

about_this_RfC_by_the_Brand_Project_team
> >
> > [3]
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
> >
> > [4]
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/FAQ
> >
> > [5]
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Samir Elsharbaty (he/him)
> >
> > Community Brand and Marketing coordinator
> >
> > Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 1:12 AM David Gerard  wrote:
> >
> > > Yes. Who's the person telling Samir to post this stuff, which comes
> > > across as aggressively ignoring all feedback to date? Could we have a
> > > word with them here?
> > >
> > >
> > > - d.
> > >
> > > On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 14:12, Peter Southwood
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > When you speak for someone who is hard of listening, it is an
> > > occupational hazard that you will be shouted at occasionally by those
> > whose
> > > voices are being ignored. It is not necessarily anything personal, just
> > > part of the heat in the kitchen.
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Yaroslav Blanter
> > > > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 11:28 AM
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
> > > >
> > > > In all honesty, this should not have been directed at Samir. I do not
> > > think
> > > > he has the authority to stop the process. And whoever has probably
> > spends
> > > > more time in Twitter that in Wikimedia projects.
> > > >
> > > > Best
> > > > Yaroslav
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 11:12 AM Tito Dutta 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > There is something called [[WP:IDHT,]] i.e. I didn't hear that.
> > > > > No matter how many times, how many people (90% in the RFC) speak, I
> > > just
> > > > > didn't hear that.
> > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > (Comment in personal capacity)
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 00:15, Samir Elsharbaty <
> > > selsharb...@wikimedia.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We wanted to follow up with a brief update on the project timeline
> > > and
> > > > > > share an invitation to join an event this month.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We know there continues to be so much uncertainty in the world, so
> > > we are
> > > > > > slowing down the process of the project. Big changes are happening
> > > to all
> > > > > > of us these days. We want to make sure that we respect the time and
> > > > > > priorities of the project collaborators. This means updating the
> > > project
> > > > > > timeline approach to have more flexibility for participants and
> > > smaller
> > > > > > time commitments [1], revising the project schedule month by month
> > > and
> > > > > > keeping the Brand Network [2] and other participants informed on a
> > > more
> > > > > > regular basis with any updates and changes. The naming discussions
> > > > > planned
> > > > > > for April are now pushed to May, at the earliest. Design proposals
> > > are
> > > > > > likewise shifted +4 weeks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But we do have things to share:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *This month: live brand concept presentation!*
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To honor, celebrate, and conclude the work around the concepts
> > > referred
> > > > > to
> > > > > > in Essie’s email above [3], Snohetta and the Brand Project team
> > will
> > > > > > present the Unified Concept LIVE on 16 April, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Tito Dutta]

cross as aggressively ignoring all feedback to date? Could we have a
> > word with them here?
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 14:12, Peter Southwood
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > When you speak for someone who is hard of listening, it is an
> > occupational hazard that you will be shouted at occasionally by those
> whose
> > voices are being ignored. It is not necessarily anything personal, just
> > part of the heat in the kitchen.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Yaroslav Blanter
> > > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 11:28 AM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
> > >
> > > In all honesty, this should not have been directed at Samir. I do not
> > think
> > > he has the authority to stop the process. And whoever has probably
> spends
> > > more time in Twitter that in Wikimedia projects.
> > >
> > > Best
> > > Yaroslav
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 11:12 AM Tito Dutta 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > There is something called [[WP:IDHT,]] i.e. I didn't hear that.
> > > > No matter how many times, how many people (90% in the RFC) speak, I
> > just
> > > > didn't hear that.
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > > (Comment in personal capacity)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 00:15, Samir Elsharbaty <
> > selsharb...@wikimedia.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi All,
> > > > >
> > > > > We wanted to follow up with a brief update on the project timeline
> > and
> > > > > share an invitation to join an event this month.
> > > > >
> > > > > We know there continues to be so much uncertainty in the world, so
> > we are
> > > > > slowing down the process of the project. Big changes are happening
> > to all
> > > > > of us these days. We want to make sure that we respect the time and
> > > > > priorities of the project collaborators. This means updating the
> > project
> > > > > timeline approach to have more flexibility for participants and
> > smaller
> > > > > time commitments [1], revising the project schedule month by month
> > and
> > > > > keeping the Brand Network [2] and other participants informed on a
> > more
> > > > > regular basis with any updates and changes. The naming discussions
> > > > planned
> > > > > for April are now pushed to May, at the earliest. Design proposals
> > are
> > > > > likewise shifted +4 weeks.
> > > > >
> > > > > But we do have things to share:
> > > > >
> > > > > *This month: live brand concept presentation!*
> > > > >
> > > > > To honor, celebrate, and conclude the work around the concepts
> > referred
> > > > to
> > > > > in Essie’s email above [3], Snohetta and the Brand Project team
> will
> > > > > present the Unified Concept LIVE on 16 April, 15:00 - 16:00 GMT.
> > Snøhetta
> > > > > will explain how they used the ideas, feedback and conceptual
> models
> > from
> > > > > the workshops and online exercises to arrive at a final, unified
> > concept.
> > > > > This unified concept  will be the foundation for the upcoming work
> > around
> > > > > the naming conventions, visual decisions, and the overall design
> > system.
> > > > > The session will also be recorded and made available for viewing
> > after.
> > > > You
> > > > > can join us using these links. [4] Note: this is not a presentation
> > of a
> > > > > proposal for a naming convention or design.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you!
> > > > >
> > > > > Samir and the brand project team
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Timeline
> > > > >
> > > > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Brand_Network
> > > > >
> >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Ilario valdelli]

More complicated.

The process has been managed as a "pure" marketing and communication 
process while it concerns more community management.


I don't see here (honestly) any community management.

Knd regards

On 11/04/2020 12:27, Gnangarra wrote:

Since the process has decided its not hearing that the community doesnt
want the change why continue to pretend the communities input or interest
in the project is even wanted.

On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 17:25, John Erling Blad  wrote:


This is a reply Shamir, but it is more a reply to the process and Wikimedia
Foundation.

Reading [1] my immediate thought is that whoever wrote it is more focused
on reputing the core finding than respecting the outcome. It is a reaction
to the statement “We do not know what the Wikimedia Foundation’s new name
would be, only that it would utilize Wikipedia not Wikimedia.” and 91% says
“no”. Still the process continues as nothing has happen. When 91% opposes a
change in volunteer organization you stop and listen, this is an
earthquake.

I opposed the name change, even if I don't really agree with the RFC, but
what happen later I find perhaps more troublesome. This shows a real lack
of understanding of why people objected to the idea. People have said no to
this several times now, and the process continues like nothing has happen.
Someone must clarify what this is, and who is behind it, and why, because
as it is now the chance of onboarding the communities are virtually zero.

As it is now I would say call it a failure, and make a full halt.

[1]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/RfC_Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia

John Erling Blad
/jeblad

On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 10:49 AM Samir Elsharbaty <
selsharb...@wikimedia.org>
wrote:






--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikipedia: Ilario
Skype: valdelli
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Gnangarra]

gt; > > word with them here?
> > >
> > >
> > > - d.
> > >
> > > On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 14:12, Peter Southwood
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > When you speak for someone who is hard of listening, it is an
> > > occupational hazard that you will be shouted at occasionally by those
> > whose
> > > voices are being ignored. It is not necessarily anything personal, just
> > > part of the heat in the kitchen.
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On
> > > Behalf Of Yaroslav Blanter
> > > > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 11:28 AM
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
> > > >
> > > > In all honesty, this should not have been directed at Samir. I do not
> > > think
> > > > he has the authority to stop the process. And whoever has probably
> > spends
> > > > more time in Twitter that in Wikimedia projects.
> > > >
> > > > Best
> > > > Yaroslav
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 11:12 AM Tito Dutta 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > There is something called [[WP:IDHT,]] i.e. I didn't hear that.
> > > > > No matter how many times, how many people (90% in the RFC) speak, I
> > > just
> > > > > didn't hear that.
> > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > (Comment in personal capacity)
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 00:15, Samir Elsharbaty <
> > > selsharb...@wikimedia.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We wanted to follow up with a brief update on the project
> timeline
> > > and
> > > > > > share an invitation to join an event this month.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We know there continues to be so much uncertainty in the world,
> so
> > > we are
> > > > > > slowing down the process of the project. Big changes are
> happening
> > > to all
> > > > > > of us these days. We want to make sure that we respect the time
> and
> > > > > > priorities of the project collaborators. This means updating the
> > > project
> > > > > > timeline approach to have more flexibility for participants and
> > > smaller
> > > > > > time commitments [1], revising the project schedule month by
> month
> > > and
> > > > > > keeping the Brand Network [2] and other participants informed on
> a
> > > more
> > > > > > regular basis with any updates and changes. The naming
> discussions
> > > > > planned
> > > > > > for April are now pushed to May, at the earliest. Design
> proposals
> > > are
> > > > > > likewise shifted +4 weeks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But we do have things to share:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *This month: live brand concept presentation!*
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To honor, celebrate, and conclude the work around the concepts
> > > referred
> > > > > to
> > > > > > in Essie’s email above [3], Snohetta and the Brand Project team
> > will
> > > > > > present the Unified Concept LIVE on 16 April, 15:00 - 16:00 GMT.
> > > Snøhetta
> > > > > > will explain how they used the ideas, feedback and conceptual
> > models
> > > from
> > > > > > the workshops and online exercises to arrive at a final, unified
> > > concept.
> > > > > > This unified concept  will be the foundation for the upcoming
> work
> > > around
> > > > > > the naming conventions, visual decisions, and the overall design
> > > system.
> > > > > > The session will also be recorded and made available for viewing
> > > after.
> > > > > You
> > > > > > can join us using these links. [4] Note: this is not a
> presentation
> > > of a
> > > > > > proposal for a naming convention or design.
> > > > > >
> &g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[John Erling Blad]

This is a reply Shamir, but it is more a reply to the process and Wikimedia
Foundation.

Reading [1] my immediate thought is that whoever wrote it is more focused
on reputing the core finding than respecting the outcome. It is a reaction
to the statement “We do not know what the Wikimedia Foundation’s new name
would be, only that it would utilize Wikipedia not Wikimedia.” and 91% says
“no”. Still the process continues as nothing has happen. When 91% opposes a
change in volunteer organization you stop and listen, this is an earthquake.

I opposed the name change, even if I don't really agree with the RFC, but
what happen later I find perhaps more troublesome. This shows a real lack
of understanding of why people objected to the idea. People have said no to
this several times now, and the process continues like nothing has happen.
Someone must clarify what this is, and who is behind it, and why, because
as it is now the chance of onboarding the communities are virtually zero.

As it is now I would say call it a failure, and make a full halt.

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/RfC_Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia

John Erling Blad
/jeblad

On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 10:49 AM Samir Elsharbaty 
wrote:

> Hi, the Brand team has been watching the RfC and has written a summary
> about it [1] that was shared both in the RfC [2] and the project page [3]
> in Meta. The team has integrated the feedback of the RfC in the development
> process, just as we did with the activities organized by the project
> itself.
>
> The RfC is covered in the main project page as well as in the FAQ [4]. The
> RfC has been a recurrent topic of discussion in the Brand project talk page
> [5], where we are answering questions and discussing topics whenever they
> are posted. We recommend you to have a look at these updates before making
> further conclusions here.
>
> The RfC is about the use of the word “Wikipedia” in the name of the
> Foundation, and by extension the names of affiliates were discussed as
> well. The project team has clarified that many options for a naming
> convention are being explored. While having Wikipedia as a central concept
> is a project requirement, It is very unlikely that any naming convention
> proposal will be based on a simple substitution of the word "Wikimedia"
> with the word "Wikipedia". Brand systems offer many more possibilities.
>
> Another important point to clarify is that the proposals for naming
> conventions haven’t been defined yet. According to the project timeline
> [6], several proposals for a naming convention will be shared with the
> communities for feedback in May, at the earliest. At the end of this
> review, one proposal will be selected and refined. You can check the
> timeline to learn about further phases with public reviews before the full
> proposal for a brand system is presented to the Wikimedia Foundation
> leadership and the Board.
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/RfC_Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia
>
> [2]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia#Report_about_this_RfC_by_the_Brand_Project_team
>
> [3]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
>
> [4]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/FAQ
>
> [5]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
>
>
>
>
> Samir Elsharbaty (he/him)
>
> Community Brand and Marketing coordinator
>
> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 1:12 AM David Gerard  wrote:
>
> > Yes. Who's the person telling Samir to post this stuff, which comes
> > across as aggressively ignoring all feedback to date? Could we have a
> > word with them here?
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 14:12, Peter Southwood
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > When you speak for someone who is hard of listening, it is an
> > occupational hazard that you will be shouted at occasionally by those
> whose
> > voices are being ignored. It is not necessarily anything personal, just
> > part of the heat in the kitchen.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Yaroslav Blanter
> > > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 11:28 AM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: R

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[David Gerard]

On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 09:49, Samir Elsharbaty
 wrote:

> While having Wikipedia as a central concept
> is a project requirement,

... and here we have the source of all the problems here: the answer
has been predetermined.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Samir Elsharbaty]

Sorry dropped footnote #[6] while sending:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Timeline

Samir Elsharbaty (he/him)

Community Brand and Marketing coordinator

Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>



On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 10:22 AM Samir Elsharbaty 
wrote:

> Hi, the Brand team has been watching the RfC and has written a summary
> about it [1] that was shared both in the RfC [2] and the project page [3]
> in Meta. The team has integrated the feedback of the RfC in the development
> process, just as we did with the activities organized by the project
> itself.
>
> The RfC is covered in the main project page as well as in the FAQ [4]. The
> RfC has been a recurrent topic of discussion in the Brand project talk page
> [5], where we are answering questions and discussing topics whenever they
> are posted. We recommend you to have a look at these updates before making
> further conclusions here.
>
> The RfC is about the use of the word “Wikipedia” in the name of the
> Foundation, and by extension the names of affiliates were discussed as
> well. The project team has clarified that many options for a naming
> convention are being explored. While having Wikipedia as a central concept
> is a project requirement, It is very unlikely that any naming convention
> proposal will be based on a simple substitution of the word "Wikimedia"
> with the word "Wikipedia". Brand systems offer many more possibilities.
>
> Another important point to clarify is that the proposals for naming
> conventions haven’t been defined yet. According to the project timeline
> [6], several proposals for a naming convention will be shared with the
> communities for feedback in May, at the earliest. At the end of this
> review, one proposal will be selected and refined. You can check the
> timeline to learn about further phases with public reviews before the full
> proposal for a brand system is presented to the Wikimedia Foundation
> leadership and the Board.
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/RfC_Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia
>
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia#Report_about_this_RfC_by_the_Brand_Project_team
>
> [3]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
>
> [4]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/FAQ
>
> [5]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
>
>
>
>
> Samir Elsharbaty (he/him)
>
> Community Brand and Marketing coordinator
>
> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 1:12 AM David Gerard  wrote:
>
>> Yes. Who's the person telling Samir to post this stuff, which comes
>> across as aggressively ignoring all feedback to date? Could we have a
>> word with them here?
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 14:12, Peter Southwood
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > When you speak for someone who is hard of listening, it is an
>> occupational hazard that you will be shouted at occasionally by those whose
>> voices are being ignored. It is not necessarily anything personal, just
>> part of the heat in the kitchen.
>> > Cheers,
>> > Peter
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
>> Behalf Of Yaroslav Blanter
>> > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 11:28 AM
>> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
>> >
>> > In all honesty, this should not have been directed at Samir. I do not
>> think
>> > he has the authority to stop the process. And whoever has probably
>> spends
>> > more time in Twitter that in Wikimedia projects.
>> >
>> > Best
>> > Yaroslav
>> >
>> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 11:12 AM Tito Dutta 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > There is something called [[WP:IDHT,]] i.e. I didn't hear that.
>> > > No matter how many times, how many people (90% in the RFC) speak, I
>> just
>> > > didn't hear that.
>> > > Kind regards,
>> > > (Comment in personal capacity)
>> > >
>> > > Thanks
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 00:15, Samir Elsharbaty <
>> selsharb...@wikimedia.org>
>> &g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Samir Elsharbaty]

Hi, the Brand team has been watching the RfC and has written a summary
about it [1] that was shared both in the RfC [2] and the project page [3]
in Meta. The team has integrated the feedback of the RfC in the development
process, just as we did with the activities organized by the project
itself.

The RfC is covered in the main project page as well as in the FAQ [4]. The
RfC has been a recurrent topic of discussion in the Brand project talk page
[5], where we are answering questions and discussing topics whenever they
are posted. We recommend you to have a look at these updates before making
further conclusions here.

The RfC is about the use of the word “Wikipedia” in the name of the
Foundation, and by extension the names of affiliates were discussed as
well. The project team has clarified that many options for a naming
convention are being explored. While having Wikipedia as a central concept
is a project requirement, It is very unlikely that any naming convention
proposal will be based on a simple substitution of the word "Wikimedia"
with the word "Wikipedia". Brand systems offer many more possibilities.

Another important point to clarify is that the proposals for naming
conventions haven’t been defined yet. According to the project timeline
[6], several proposals for a naming convention will be shared with the
communities for feedback in May, at the earliest. At the end of this
review, one proposal will be selected and refined. You can check the
timeline to learn about further phases with public reviews before the full
proposal for a brand system is presented to the Wikimedia Foundation
leadership and the Board.

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/RfC_Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia

[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia#Report_about_this_RfC_by_the_Brand_Project_team

[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project

[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/FAQ

[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project




Samir Elsharbaty (he/him)

Community Brand and Marketing coordinator

Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>



On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 1:12 AM David Gerard  wrote:

> Yes. Who's the person telling Samir to post this stuff, which comes
> across as aggressively ignoring all feedback to date? Could we have a
> word with them here?
>
>
> - d.
>
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 14:12, Peter Southwood
>  wrote:
> >
> > When you speak for someone who is hard of listening, it is an
> occupational hazard that you will be shouted at occasionally by those whose
> voices are being ignored. It is not necessarily anything personal, just
> part of the heat in the kitchen.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Yaroslav Blanter
> > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 11:28 AM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
> >
> > In all honesty, this should not have been directed at Samir. I do not
> think
> > he has the authority to stop the process. And whoever has probably spends
> > more time in Twitter that in Wikimedia projects.
> >
> > Best
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 11:12 AM Tito Dutta  wrote:
> >
> > > There is something called [[WP:IDHT,]] i.e. I didn't hear that.
> > > No matter how many times, how many people (90% in the RFC) speak, I
> just
> > > didn't hear that.
> > > Kind regards,
> > > (Comment in personal capacity)
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 00:15, Samir Elsharbaty <
> selsharb...@wikimedia.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > We wanted to follow up with a brief update on the project timeline
> and
> > > > share an invitation to join an event this month.
> > > >
> > > > We know there continues to be so much uncertainty in the world, so
> we are
> > > > slowing down the process of the project. Big changes are happening
> to all
> > > > of us these days. We want to make sure that we respect the time and
> > > > priorities of the project collaborators. This means updating the
> project
> > > > timeline approach to have more flexibility for participants and
> smaller
> > > > time commitments [1], revising the project schedule

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[David Gerard]

Yes. Who's the person telling Samir to post this stuff, which comes
across as aggressively ignoring all feedback to date? Could we have a
word with them here?


- d.

On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 14:12, Peter Southwood
 wrote:
>
> When you speak for someone who is hard of listening, it is an occupational 
> hazard that you will be shouted at occasionally by those whose voices are 
> being ignored. It is not necessarily anything personal, just part of the heat 
> in the kitchen.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf 
> Of Yaroslav Blanter
> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 11:28 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
>
> In all honesty, this should not have been directed at Samir. I do not think
> he has the authority to stop the process. And whoever has probably spends
> more time in Twitter that in Wikimedia projects.
>
> Best
> Yaroslav
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 11:12 AM Tito Dutta  wrote:
>
> > There is something called [[WP:IDHT,]] i.e. I didn't hear that.
> > No matter how many times, how many people (90% in the RFC) speak, I just
> > didn't hear that.
> > Kind regards,
> > (Comment in personal capacity)
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 00:15, Samir Elsharbaty 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > We wanted to follow up with a brief update on the project timeline and
> > > share an invitation to join an event this month.
> > >
> > > We know there continues to be so much uncertainty in the world, so we are
> > > slowing down the process of the project. Big changes are happening to all
> > > of us these days. We want to make sure that we respect the time and
> > > priorities of the project collaborators. This means updating the project
> > > timeline approach to have more flexibility for participants and smaller
> > > time commitments [1], revising the project schedule month by month and
> > > keeping the Brand Network [2] and other participants informed on a more
> > > regular basis with any updates and changes. The naming discussions
> > planned
> > > for April are now pushed to May, at the earliest. Design proposals are
> > > likewise shifted +4 weeks.
> > >
> > > But we do have things to share:
> > >
> > > *This month: live brand concept presentation!*
> > >
> > > To honor, celebrate, and conclude the work around the concepts referred
> > to
> > > in Essie’s email above [3], Snohetta and the Brand Project team will
> > > present the Unified Concept LIVE on 16 April, 15:00 - 16:00 GMT. Snøhetta
> > > will explain how they used the ideas, feedback and conceptual models from
> > > the workshops and online exercises to arrive at a final, unified concept.
> > > This unified concept  will be the foundation for the upcoming work around
> > > the naming conventions, visual decisions, and the overall design system.
> > > The session will also be recorded and made available for viewing after.
> > You
> > > can join us using these links. [4] Note: this is not a presentation of a
> > > proposal for a naming convention or design.
> > >
> > > Thank you!
> > >
> > > Samir and the brand project team
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Timeline
> > >
> > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Brand_Network
> > >
> > > [3] https://brandingwikipedia.org/concepts/
> > >
> > > [4] Join via Zoom:
> > >
> > > https://wikimedia.zoom.us/j/769565325
> > >
> > > Steam via Youtube Live:
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS72O6Si94Q
> > >
> > > Samir Elsharbaty (he/him)
> > >
> > > Community Brand and Marketing coordinator
> > >
> > > Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 10:32 AM David Gerard  wrote:
> > >
> > > > The article itself is spammy brochure-style nonsense, and this is even
> > > > after some cleanup. Editorial eyes welcomed.
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sn%C3%B8hetta_(company)
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sn%C3%B8hetta_%28company%29>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Peter Southwood]

When you speak for someone who is hard of listening, it is an occupational 
hazard that you will be shouted at occasionally by those whose voices are being 
ignored. It is not necessarily anything personal, just part of the heat in the 
kitchen.
Cheers, 
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Yaroslav Blanter
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 11:28 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

In all honesty, this should not have been directed at Samir. I do not think
he has the authority to stop the process. And whoever has probably spends
more time in Twitter that in Wikimedia projects.

Best
Yaroslav

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 11:12 AM Tito Dutta  wrote:

> There is something called [[WP:IDHT,]] i.e. I didn't hear that.
> No matter how many times, how many people (90% in the RFC) speak, I just
> didn't hear that.
> Kind regards,
> (Comment in personal capacity)
>
> Thanks
>
>
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 00:15, Samir Elsharbaty 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > We wanted to follow up with a brief update on the project timeline and
> > share an invitation to join an event this month.
> >
> > We know there continues to be so much uncertainty in the world, so we are
> > slowing down the process of the project. Big changes are happening to all
> > of us these days. We want to make sure that we respect the time and
> > priorities of the project collaborators. This means updating the project
> > timeline approach to have more flexibility for participants and smaller
> > time commitments [1], revising the project schedule month by month and
> > keeping the Brand Network [2] and other participants informed on a more
> > regular basis with any updates and changes. The naming discussions
> planned
> > for April are now pushed to May, at the earliest. Design proposals are
> > likewise shifted +4 weeks.
> >
> > But we do have things to share:
> >
> > *This month: live brand concept presentation!*
> >
> > To honor, celebrate, and conclude the work around the concepts referred
> to
> > in Essie’s email above [3], Snohetta and the Brand Project team will
> > present the Unified Concept LIVE on 16 April, 15:00 - 16:00 GMT. Snøhetta
> > will explain how they used the ideas, feedback and conceptual models from
> > the workshops and online exercises to arrive at a final, unified concept.
> > This unified concept  will be the foundation for the upcoming work around
> > the naming conventions, visual decisions, and the overall design system.
> > The session will also be recorded and made available for viewing after.
> You
> > can join us using these links. [4] Note: this is not a presentation of a
> > proposal for a naming convention or design.
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > Samir and the brand project team
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Timeline
> >
> > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Brand_Network
> >
> > [3] https://brandingwikipedia.org/concepts/
> >
> > [4] Join via Zoom:
> >
> > https://wikimedia.zoom.us/j/769565325
> >
> > Steam via Youtube Live:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS72O6Si94Q
> >
> > Samir Elsharbaty (he/him)
> >
> > Community Brand and Marketing coordinator
> >
> > Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 10:32 AM David Gerard  wrote:
> >
> > > The article itself is spammy brochure-style nonsense, and this is even
> > > after some cleanup. Editorial eyes welcomed.
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sn%C3%B8hetta_(company)
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sn%C3%B8hetta_%28company%29>
> > >
> > >
> > > - d.
> > >
> > > On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 23:16, Samir Elsharbaty
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > > The Brand Project Team felt it was important to address the concerns
> > and
> > > > questions around Snøhetta and the English Wikipedia, and have now
> added
> > > an
> > > > FAQ about it. [1] Please refer there for the full details about the
> > block
> > > > and what is being done. The project team is in the process of
> updating
> > > the
> > > > project materials, including the FAQ, so feel free to add those pages
> > to
> > > > your watchlist to stay up to date 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Yaroslav Blanter]

> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 4:43 AM Gnangarra 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This does have feeling of a company creating a financial
> relationship
> > > with
> > > > > the Foundation as way to bypass or backdoor a community ban thats
> > been
> > > > > reviewed already.   Over the years I've worked with many users who
> > been
> > > > > blocked and help them become productive contributors but before
> they
> > > start
> > > > > making recommendation or decisions about who we are there needs to
> be
> > > > > something done to get them back to good standing with the community
> > > first
> > > > > untiil thats taken place.It's like asking the fox to rebuild
> the
> > > hen
> > > > > house,  I just dont see how I could support anything they
> recommend.
> > > > >
> > > > > After the dollars, and t=volunteer time that has been pumped into
> the
> > > 2030
> > > > > strategy shouldnt we already know who we are, as it is that should
> > have
> > > > > been the key starting point for a strategy process. Its
> > comprehensible
> > > not
> > > > > to have known or explored that before deciding where, how, why we
> > will
> > > be
> > > > > doing anything for the next 10 years.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 03:20, David Gerard 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Particularly as they've demonstrated by their actions an
> > > unwillingness
> > > > > > to work with Wikipedia properly:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive318#Review_of_User:Sn%C3%B8hettaAS_block_please
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - d.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, 14 Mar 2020 at 04:34, Peter Southwood
> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would agree with this in principle. From what I have seen so
> > > far, it
> > > > > > looks like either Snøhetta have not done their homework on how we
> > > > > operate,
> > > > > > or they have the arrogance of PR agencies, don't care, and plan
> to
> > > spin
> > > > > > their way through with smoke and mirrors, flashy pages with lots
> of
> > > buzz,
> > > > > > little content and all the dialogue they can't avoid. Maybe I am
> > > wrong,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > they have just been badly briefed. Who can tell from the outside?
> > > Block
> > > > > > evasion does not bode well for their understanding of the
> > community.
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > Peter
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:
> > wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > On
> > > > > > Behalf Of Pine W
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 8:13 PM
> > > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a
> > movement?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > First, a disclaimer that these comments aren't directed
> > personally
> > > at
> > > > > > > you, Essie.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Even if money was unlimited, I thought that Snøhetta deserved
> the
> > > > > > > community's trust, and I felt that WMF was a good steward of
> > > resources
> > > > > > > (all of which are questionable), I don't think that this
> project
> > > is a
> > > > > > > good idea. Wikidata is an increasingly important component of
> the
> > > > > > > Wikiverse, and there are a some problems with WMF rebranding
> > > itself as
> > > > > > > the Wikipedia Foundation including the risk to the communities
> > and
> > > > > > > affiliates from WMF's political adventures, governance
> problems,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Tito Dutta]

d t=volunteer time that has been pumped into the
> > 2030
> > > > strategy shouldnt we already know who we are, as it is that should
> have
> > > > been the key starting point for a strategy process. Its
> comprehensible
> > not
> > > > to have known or explored that before deciding where, how, why we
> will
> > be
> > > > doing anything for the next 10 years.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 03:20, David Gerard 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Particularly as they've demonstrated by their actions an
> > unwillingness
> > > > > to work with Wikipedia properly:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive318#Review_of_User:Sn%C3%B8hettaAS_block_please
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - d.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, 14 Mar 2020 at 04:34, Peter Southwood
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would agree with this in principle. From what I have seen so
> > far, it
> > > > > looks like either Snøhetta have not done their homework on how we
> > > > operate,
> > > > > or they have the arrogance of PR agencies, don't care, and plan to
> > spin
> > > > > their way through with smoke and mirrors, flashy pages with lots of
> > buzz,
> > > > > little content and all the dialogue they can't avoid. Maybe I am
> > wrong,
> > > > and
> > > > > they have just been badly briefed. Who can tell from the outside?
> > Block
> > > > > evasion does not bode well for their understanding of the
> community.
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Peter
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:
> wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> > On
> > > > > Behalf Of Pine W
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 8:13 PM
> > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a
> movement?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First, a disclaimer that these comments aren't directed
> personally
> > at
> > > > > > you, Essie.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Even if money was unlimited, I thought that Snøhetta deserved the
> > > > > > community's trust, and I felt that WMF was a good steward of
> > resources
> > > > > > (all of which are questionable), I don't think that this project
> > is a
> > > > > > good idea. Wikidata is an increasingly important component of the
> > > > > > Wikiverse, and there are a some problems with WMF rebranding
> > itself as
> > > > > > the Wikipedia Foundation including the risk to the communities
> and
> > > > > > affiliates from WMF's political adventures, governance problems,
> > and
> > > > > > occasional high profile clashes with the community. I don't think
> > that
> > > > > > the costs or the risks here make sense, I wouldn't involve
> Snøhetta
> > > > > > given its apparent block evasion on English Wikipedia, and I've
> > been
> > > > > > unimpressed with WMF's handling of this process during the past
> few
> > > > > > months.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am fine with discussions about branding, but not with this
> > program
> > > > > > in its current form.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Given the choice, I would freeze this project and spending
> > associated
> > > > > > with it pending a Meta RfC regarding the community's view on
> > whether
> > > > > > this project should continue. If the community wants a branding
> > > > > > project to continue, I would let the community decide on the
> > project's
> > > > > > parameters and budget, and what if any consultant should be
> > involved.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pine
> > > > > > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Samir Elsharbaty]

lease
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - d.
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 14 Mar 2020 at 04:34, Peter Southwood
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I would agree with this in principle. From what I have seen so
> far, it
> > > > looks like either Snøhetta have not done their homework on how we
> > > operate,
> > > > or they have the arrogance of PR agencies, don't care, and plan to
> spin
> > > > their way through with smoke and mirrors, flashy pages with lots of
> buzz,
> > > > little content and all the dialogue they can't avoid. Maybe I am
> wrong,
> > > and
> > > > they have just been badly briefed. Who can tell from the outside?
> Block
> > > > evasion does not bode well for their understanding of the community.
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Peter
> > > > >
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On
> > > > Behalf Of Pine W
> > > > > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 8:13 PM
> > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > First, a disclaimer that these comments aren't directed personally
> at
> > > > > you, Essie.
> > > > >
> > > > > Even if money was unlimited, I thought that Snøhetta deserved the
> > > > > community's trust, and I felt that WMF was a good steward of
> resources
> > > > > (all of which are questionable), I don't think that this project
> is a
> > > > > good idea. Wikidata is an increasingly important component of the
> > > > > Wikiverse, and there are a some problems with WMF rebranding
> itself as
> > > > > the Wikipedia Foundation including the risk to the communities and
> > > > > affiliates from WMF's political adventures, governance problems,
> and
> > > > > occasional high profile clashes with the community. I don't think
> that
> > > > > the costs or the risks here make sense, I wouldn't involve Snøhetta
> > > > > given its apparent block evasion on English Wikipedia, and I've
> been
> > > > > unimpressed with WMF's handling of this process during the past few
> > > > > months.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am fine with discussions about branding, but not with this
> program
> > > > > in its current form.
> > > > >
> > > > > Given the choice, I would freeze this project and spending
> associated
> > > > > with it pending a Meta RfC regarding the community's view on
> whether
> > > > > this project should continue. If the community wants a branding
> > > > > project to continue, I would let the community decide on the
> project's
> > > > > parameters and budget, and what if any consultant should be
> involved.
> > > > >
> > > > > Pine
> > > > > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > > > >
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.or

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[David Gerard]

The article itself is spammy brochure-style nonsense, and this is even
after some cleanup. Editorial eyes welcomed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sn%C3%B8hetta_(company)


- d.

On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 23:16, Samir Elsharbaty
 wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> The Brand Project Team felt it was important to address the concerns and
> questions around Snøhetta and the English Wikipedia, and have now added an
> FAQ about it. [1] Please refer there for the full details about the block
> and what is being done. The project team is in the process of updating the
> project materials, including the FAQ, so feel free to add those pages to
> your watchlist to stay up to date on the latest information.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Samir
>
> [1] https://w.wiki/LEF
>
> Samir Elsharbaty (he/him)
>
> Community Brand and Marketing coordinator
>
> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 4:43 AM Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > This does have feeling of a company creating a financial relationship with
> > the Foundation as way to bypass or backdoor a community ban thats been
> > reviewed already.   Over the years I've worked with many users who been
> > blocked and help them become productive contributors but before they start
> > making recommendation or decisions about who we are there needs to be
> > something done to get them back to good standing with the community first
> > untiil thats taken place.It's like asking the fox to rebuild the hen
> > house,  I just dont see how I could support anything they recommend.
> >
> > After the dollars, and t=volunteer time that has been pumped into the 2030
> > strategy shouldnt we already know who we are, as it is that should have
> > been the key starting point for a strategy process. Its comprehensible not
> > to have known or explored that before deciding where, how, why we will be
> > doing anything for the next 10 years.
> >
> > On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 03:20, David Gerard  wrote:
> >
> > > Particularly as they've demonstrated by their actions an unwillingness
> > > to work with Wikipedia properly:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive318#Review_of_User:Sn%C3%B8hettaAS_block_please
> > >
> > >
> > > - d.
> > >
> > > On Sat, 14 Mar 2020 at 04:34, Peter Southwood
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would agree with this in principle. From what I have seen so far, it
> > > looks like either Snøhetta have not done their homework on how we
> > operate,
> > > or they have the arrogance of PR agencies, don't care, and plan to spin
> > > their way through with smoke and mirrors, flashy pages with lots of buzz,
> > > little content and all the dialogue they can't avoid. Maybe I am wrong,
> > and
> > > they have just been badly briefed. Who can tell from the outside? Block
> > > evasion does not bode well for their understanding of the community.
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Pine W
> > > > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 8:13 PM
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > First, a disclaimer that these comments aren't directed personally at
> > > > you, Essie.
> > > >
> > > > Even if money was unlimited, I thought that Snøhetta deserved the
> > > > community's trust, and I felt that WMF was a good steward of resources
> > > > (all of which are questionable), I don't think that this project is a
> > > > good idea. Wikidata is an increasingly important component of the
> > > > Wikiverse, and there are a some problems with WMF rebranding itself as
> > > > the Wikipedia Foundation including the risk to the communities and
> > > > affiliates from WMF's political adventures, governance problems, and
> > > > occasional high profile clashes with the community. I don't think that
> > > > the costs or the risks here make sense, I wouldn't involve Snøhetta
> > > > given its apparent block evasion on English Wikipedia, and I've been
> > > > unimpressed with WMF's handling of this process during the past few
> > > > months.
> > > >
> > > > I am fine w

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Todd Allen]

Samir,

I don't think the "FAQ" gets the point. The "AQ" was if the "rebranding"
was acceptable. The answer was a resounding "no".

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 5:16 PM Samir Elsharbaty 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> The Brand Project Team felt it was important to address the concerns and
> questions around Snøhetta and the English Wikipedia, and have now added an
> FAQ about it. [1] Please refer there for the full details about the block
> and what is being done. The project team is in the process of updating the
> project materials, including the FAQ, so feel free to add those pages to
> your watchlist to stay up to date on the latest information.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Samir
>
> [1] https://w.wiki/LEF
>
> Samir Elsharbaty (he/him)
>
> Community Brand and Marketing coordinator
>
> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 4:43 AM Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > This does have feeling of a company creating a financial relationship
> with
> > the Foundation as way to bypass or backdoor a community ban thats been
> > reviewed already.   Over the years I've worked with many users who been
> > blocked and help them become productive contributors but before they
> start
> > making recommendation or decisions about who we are there needs to be
> > something done to get them back to good standing with the community first
> > untiil thats taken place.It's like asking the fox to rebuild the hen
> > house,  I just dont see how I could support anything they recommend.
> >
> > After the dollars, and t=volunteer time that has been pumped into the
> 2030
> > strategy shouldnt we already know who we are, as it is that should have
> > been the key starting point for a strategy process. Its comprehensible
> not
> > to have known or explored that before deciding where, how, why we will be
> > doing anything for the next 10 years.
> >
> > On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 03:20, David Gerard  wrote:
> >
> > > Particularly as they've demonstrated by their actions an unwillingness
> > > to work with Wikipedia properly:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive318#Review_of_User:Sn%C3%B8hettaAS_block_please
> > >
> > >
> > > - d.
> > >
> > > On Sat, 14 Mar 2020 at 04:34, Peter Southwood
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would agree with this in principle. From what I have seen so far,
> it
> > > looks like either Snøhetta have not done their homework on how we
> > operate,
> > > or they have the arrogance of PR agencies, don't care, and plan to spin
> > > their way through with smoke and mirrors, flashy pages with lots of
> buzz,
> > > little content and all the dialogue they can't avoid. Maybe I am wrong,
> > and
> > > they have just been badly briefed. Who can tell from the outside? Block
> > > evasion does not bode well for their understanding of the community.
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On
> > > Behalf Of Pine W
> > > > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 8:13 PM
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > First, a disclaimer that these comments aren't directed personally at
> > > > you, Essie.
> > > >
> > > > Even if money was unlimited, I thought that Snøhetta deserved the
> > > > community's trust, and I felt that WMF was a good steward of
> resources
> > > > (all of which are questionable), I don't think that this project is a
> > > > good idea. Wikidata is an increasingly important component of the
> > > > Wikiverse, and there are a some problems with WMF rebranding itself
> as
> > > > the Wikipedia Foundation including the risk to the communities and
> > > > affiliates from WMF's political adventures, governance problems, and
> > > > occasional high profile clashes with the community. I don't think
> that
> > > > the costs or the risks here make sense, I wouldn't involve Snøhetta
> > > > given its apparent block evasion on English Wikipedia, and I've been
> > > > unimpressed with WMF's handling of this process during the past few
> > > > months.
> > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The fact that it is considered major enough to address how Snøhetta became
blocked on English Wikipedia is ok. What is also does is confirm the bias
towards English Wikipedia. I am pretty sure that in the briefing of
Snøhetta personnel it was NOT mentioned that other projects may have
different policies, they substantially differ.

For me this whole process seems like a traintrack leading to a train wreck.
Wikipedia is not what *we *do, it is the brand Wikimedia is best known for.
Remember bias is not experienced and appreciated by the people who are
associated with what is dominant. I stated before how Wikipedia bias has
prevented us to move forward with our other "brands" and projects. I would
like some response on that.
Thanks,
GeradM

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 at 00:16, Samir Elsharbaty 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> The Brand Project Team felt it was important to address the concerns and
> questions around Snøhetta and the English Wikipedia, and have now added an
> FAQ about it. [1] Please refer there for the full details about the block
> and what is being done. The project team is in the process of updating the
> project materials, including the FAQ, so feel free to add those pages to
> your watchlist to stay up to date on the latest information.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Samir
>
> [1] https://w.wiki/LEF
>
> Samir Elsharbaty (he/him)
>
> Community Brand and Marketing coordinator
>
> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 4:43 AM Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > This does have feeling of a company creating a financial relationship
> with
> > the Foundation as way to bypass or backdoor a community ban thats been
> > reviewed already.   Over the years I've worked with many users who been
> > blocked and help them become productive contributors but before they
> start
> > making recommendation or decisions about who we are there needs to be
> > something done to get them back to good standing with the community first
> > untiil thats taken place.It's like asking the fox to rebuild the hen
> > house,  I just dont see how I could support anything they recommend.
> >
> > After the dollars, and t=volunteer time that has been pumped into the
> 2030
> > strategy shouldnt we already know who we are, as it is that should have
> > been the key starting point for a strategy process. Its comprehensible
> not
> > to have known or explored that before deciding where, how, why we will be
> > doing anything for the next 10 years.
> >
> > On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 03:20, David Gerard  wrote:
> >
> > > Particularly as they've demonstrated by their actions an unwillingness
> > > to work with Wikipedia properly:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive318#Review_of_User:Sn%C3%B8hettaAS_block_please
> > >
> > >
> > > - d.
> > >
> > > On Sat, 14 Mar 2020 at 04:34, Peter Southwood
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would agree with this in principle. From what I have seen so far,
> it
> > > looks like either Snøhetta have not done their homework on how we
> > operate,
> > > or they have the arrogance of PR agencies, don't care, and plan to spin
> > > their way through with smoke and mirrors, flashy pages with lots of
> buzz,
> > > little content and all the dialogue they can't avoid. Maybe I am wrong,
> > and
> > > they have just been badly briefed. Who can tell from the outside? Block
> > > evasion does not bode well for their understanding of the community.
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On
> > > Behalf Of Pine W
> > > > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 8:13 PM
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > First, a disclaimer that these comments aren't directed personally at
> > > > you, Essie.
> > > >
> > > > Even if money was unlimited, I thought that Snøhetta deserved the
> > > > community's trust, and I felt that WMF was a good steward of
> resources
> > > > (all of which are questionable), I don't think that this project is a
> > > > good idea. Wikidata is an increasingly important component of the
> > > > Wikiverse, and there are a some problems with WMF rebrandi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Samir Elsharbaty]

Hi everyone,

The Brand Project Team felt it was important to address the concerns and
questions around Snøhetta and the English Wikipedia, and have now added an
FAQ about it. [1] Please refer there for the full details about the block
and what is being done. The project team is in the process of updating the
project materials, including the FAQ, so feel free to add those pages to
your watchlist to stay up to date on the latest information.


Best,

Samir

[1] https://w.wiki/LEF

Samir Elsharbaty (he/him)

Community Brand and Marketing coordinator

Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>



On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 4:43 AM Gnangarra  wrote:

> This does have feeling of a company creating a financial relationship with
> the Foundation as way to bypass or backdoor a community ban thats been
> reviewed already.   Over the years I've worked with many users who been
> blocked and help them become productive contributors but before they start
> making recommendation or decisions about who we are there needs to be
> something done to get them back to good standing with the community first
> untiil thats taken place.It's like asking the fox to rebuild the hen
> house,  I just dont see how I could support anything they recommend.
>
> After the dollars, and t=volunteer time that has been pumped into the 2030
> strategy shouldnt we already know who we are, as it is that should have
> been the key starting point for a strategy process. Its comprehensible not
> to have known or explored that before deciding where, how, why we will be
> doing anything for the next 10 years.
>
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 03:20, David Gerard  wrote:
>
> > Particularly as they've demonstrated by their actions an unwillingness
> > to work with Wikipedia properly:
> >
> >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive318#Review_of_User:Sn%C3%B8hettaAS_block_please
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > On Sat, 14 Mar 2020 at 04:34, Peter Southwood
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > I would agree with this in principle. From what I have seen so far, it
> > looks like either Snøhetta have not done their homework on how we
> operate,
> > or they have the arrogance of PR agencies, don't care, and plan to spin
> > their way through with smoke and mirrors, flashy pages with lots of buzz,
> > little content and all the dialogue they can't avoid. Maybe I am wrong,
> and
> > they have just been badly briefed. Who can tell from the outside? Block
> > evasion does not bode well for their understanding of the community.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-----
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Pine W
> > > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 8:13 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > First, a disclaimer that these comments aren't directed personally at
> > > you, Essie.
> > >
> > > Even if money was unlimited, I thought that Snøhetta deserved the
> > > community's trust, and I felt that WMF was a good steward of resources
> > > (all of which are questionable), I don't think that this project is a
> > > good idea. Wikidata is an increasingly important component of the
> > > Wikiverse, and there are a some problems with WMF rebranding itself as
> > > the Wikipedia Foundation including the risk to the communities and
> > > affiliates from WMF's political adventures, governance problems, and
> > > occasional high profile clashes with the community. I don't think that
> > > the costs or the risks here make sense, I wouldn't involve Snøhetta
> > > given its apparent block evasion on English Wikipedia, and I've been
> > > unimpressed with WMF's handling of this process during the past few
> > > months.
> > >
> > > I am fine with discussions about branding, but not with this program
> > > in its current form.
> > >
> > > Given the choice, I would freeze this project and spending associated
> > > with it pending a Meta RfC regarding the community's view on whether
> > > this project should continue. If the community wants a branding
> > > project to continue, I would let the community decide on the project's
> > > parameters and budget, and what if any consultant should be involved.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > >
> > > ___

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Gnangarra]

This does have feeling of a company creating a financial relationship with
the Foundation as way to bypass or backdoor a community ban thats been
reviewed already.   Over the years I've worked with many users who been
blocked and help them become productive contributors but before they start
making recommendation or decisions about who we are there needs to be
something done to get them back to good standing with the community first
untiil thats taken place.It's like asking the fox to rebuild the hen
house,  I just dont see how I could support anything they recommend.

After the dollars, and t=volunteer time that has been pumped into the 2030
strategy shouldnt we already know who we are, as it is that should have
been the key starting point for a strategy process. Its comprehensible not
to have known or explored that before deciding where, how, why we will be
doing anything for the next 10 years.

On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 03:20, David Gerard  wrote:

> Particularly as they've demonstrated by their actions an unwillingness
> to work with Wikipedia properly:
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive318#Review_of_User:Sn%C3%B8hettaAS_block_please
>
>
> - d.
>
> On Sat, 14 Mar 2020 at 04:34, Peter Southwood
>  wrote:
> >
> > I would agree with this in principle. From what I have seen so far, it
> looks like either Snøhetta have not done their homework on how we operate,
> or they have the arrogance of PR agencies, don't care, and plan to spin
> their way through with smoke and mirrors, flashy pages with lots of buzz,
> little content and all the dialogue they can't avoid. Maybe I am wrong, and
> they have just been badly briefed. Who can tell from the outside? Block
> evasion does not bode well for their understanding of the community.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Pine W
> > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 8:13 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > First, a disclaimer that these comments aren't directed personally at
> > you, Essie.
> >
> > Even if money was unlimited, I thought that Snøhetta deserved the
> > community's trust, and I felt that WMF was a good steward of resources
> > (all of which are questionable), I don't think that this project is a
> > good idea. Wikidata is an increasingly important component of the
> > Wikiverse, and there are a some problems with WMF rebranding itself as
> > the Wikipedia Foundation including the risk to the communities and
> > affiliates from WMF's political adventures, governance problems, and
> > occasional high profile clashes with the community. I don't think that
> > the costs or the risks here make sense, I wouldn't involve Snøhetta
> > given its apparent block evasion on English Wikipedia, and I've been
> > unimpressed with WMF's handling of this process during the past few
> > months.
> >
> > I am fine with discussions about branding, but not with this program
> > in its current form.
> >
> > Given the choice, I would freeze this project and spending associated
> > with it pending a Meta RfC regarding the community's view on whether
> > this project should continue. If the community wants a branding
> > project to continue, I would let the community decide on the project's
> > parameters and budget, and what if any consultant should be involved.
> >
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Ne

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[David Gerard]

Particularly as they've demonstrated by their actions an unwillingness
to work with Wikipedia properly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive318#Review_of_User:Sn%C3%B8hettaAS_block_please


- d.

On Sat, 14 Mar 2020 at 04:34, Peter Southwood
 wrote:
>
> I would agree with this in principle. From what I have seen so far, it looks 
> like either Snøhetta have not done their homework on how we operate, or they 
> have the arrogance of PR agencies, don't care, and plan to spin their way 
> through with smoke and mirrors, flashy pages with lots of buzz, little 
> content and all the dialogue they can't avoid. Maybe I am wrong, and they 
> have just been badly briefed. Who can tell from the outside? Block evasion 
> does not bode well for their understanding of the community.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf 
> Of Pine W
> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 8:13 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
>
> Hello,
>
> First, a disclaimer that these comments aren't directed personally at
> you, Essie.
>
> Even if money was unlimited, I thought that Snøhetta deserved the
> community's trust, and I felt that WMF was a good steward of resources
> (all of which are questionable), I don't think that this project is a
> good idea. Wikidata is an increasingly important component of the
> Wikiverse, and there are a some problems with WMF rebranding itself as
> the Wikipedia Foundation including the risk to the communities and
> affiliates from WMF's political adventures, governance problems, and
> occasional high profile clashes with the community. I don't think that
> the costs or the risks here make sense, I wouldn't involve Snøhetta
> given its apparent block evasion on English Wikipedia, and I've been
> unimpressed with WMF's handling of this process during the past few
> months.
>
> I am fine with discussions about branding, but not with this program
> in its current form.
>
> Given the choice, I would freeze this project and spending associated
> with it pending a Meta RfC regarding the community's view on whether
> this project should continue. If the community wants a branding
> project to continue, I would let the community decide on the project's
> parameters and budget, and what if any consultant should be involved.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Samir Elsharbaty]

Hello,

The pause we announced was to the community activity on the movement brand
project.[1] With the global pandemic, we thought that it should be
everyone’s priority to take care of themselves and their families right
now. In the meantime, our project team will be working with Snohetta to
review the project materials and make any necessary adjustments to the
timeline.

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#Sn%C3%B8hetta_exercise_#2:_Who_are_we
?


Samir Elsharbaty (he/him)

Community Brand and Marketing coordinator

Wikimedia Foundation 



On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 4:31 AM Pine W  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I heard indirectly that the rebranding work is being paused due to the
> issues with COVID-19. Is anyone able to confirm this? I would be
> relieved if WMF is pausing and will reconsider what it's doing with
> regards to rebranding.
>
> To reiterate a comment that I made previously, I am OK in principle
> with having discussions about branding.
>
> However, there are multiple reasons that I am unhappy with the current
> process.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Pine W]

Hello,

I heard indirectly that the rebranding work is being paused due to the
issues with COVID-19. Is anyone able to confirm this? I would be
relieved if WMF is pausing and will reconsider what it's doing with
regards to rebranding.

To reiterate a comment that I made previously, I am OK in principle
with having discussions about branding.

However, there are multiple reasons that I am unhappy with the current process.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Peter Southwood]

Fair enough, I agree that the bias towards the English Wikipedia exists. It is 
natural and to be expected within English Wikipedia, but should not exist 
elsewhere in the Wikimedia community. I also agree that sometimes a regional 
bias exists because people from that region add more content, and we tend to 
add the content we know and care about and for which we have sources. I also 
agree that making Wikipedia the primary brand is likely to increase bias and 
tend to marginalise the non-Wikipedia projects even more.
Cheers, 
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: 15 March 2020 12:47
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Hoi,
Back your pardon. I do not blame the English Wikipedia for the
shortcomings of other Wikipedias. It does a reasonable job at informing an
English reading public. The point that I make is that we do not consider
how the bias towards English Wikipedia prevents us from reaching out and
sharing in the sum of all knowledge.

There is documentation that Cebuan Wikipedia articles are well presented
and provide a more complete coverage of the knowledge domains it covers.
Also please remember that all US places were added to English Wikipedia by
bot.

When I document bias, it is for you to understand that this bias exists. I
stopped writing in English Wikipedia because the American perspective was
more relevant that an international perspective.

At stake in this thread is making Wikipedia a central brand. I indicated
earlier that those living the English Wikipedia reality are not aware of
the negative effects of its bias. In effect you tell me to do something
about it. Well, I have been blogging about Wikimedia for the last 15 years
[1] and I learned that documentation may be relevant but it is unlikely to
make people see what is in front of them.
Thanks,
  GerardM

[1] https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/

On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 11:16, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> It is grossly unrealistic to blame English Wikipedia and its editing
> community for what you appear to consider the shortcomings of other
> Wikipedias. En: does not require or pressurise other projects to comply
> with its editorial standards, which are those developed by en:WP, and for
> en:WP. Other projects are free to set and use their own standards for
> content, within the general WMF terms of use, and generally do. If they
> choose to emulate en:WP that is their prerogative.
> If you think that Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job of informing on the
> subject matter it covers than other projects, and would like to convince
> other projects that this is a realistic and rational opinion, and that they
> should follow that example, you are free to produce documentary evidence
> from experts that this is the case, and present it to the editing
> communities of those projects for consideration.
> If Commons are exceeding their remit by refusing to host material that is
> not used on en:WP, that is not the policy or the fault of the en:WP
> community who have no authority over Commons.
> As a general rule, when discussing a topic where there is scope for
> confusion, there is less likely for confusion to occur when you are
> sufficiently specific when referring to the ambiguous entities.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: 15 March 2020 08:37
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
>
> Hoi,
> By making the point that there is no Wikipedia AND that almost universally
> but particularly people who buy into English Wikipedia consider Wikipedia
> English Wikipedia, I expected that this is understood. I then address
> English Wikipedia specifically because it is its conventions that prevent
> the sum of all our knowledge to be shared.
>
> Just to make that point specific, Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job
> informing on the total of the subject matters it covers, it is a project of
> a father who wants his children to have access to knowledge in their
> maternal language. From a Wiki point of view he deserves praise and
> gratitude in stead he gets scorn because it is against English Wikipedia
> conventions. Furthermore the approach of using data to bring knowledge in
> other languages is frustrated from within WMF.  We could do a better job, a
> job that will work for any language but it is actively discouraged. The
> result is that we do NOT share in the sum of all knowledge, not even the
> knowledge that is available to us. In other words, English Wikipedia
> conventions prevent us from working towards our stated goal.
> Thanks,
>Gerar

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I would rather answer a different question: What would it take for us to
share the sum of all knowledge available to us to any and all people in any
and all languages they can read.

The benefit of such a marketing approach and not an antagonistic approach
is that English Wikipedia may do what it does, it may even fit in with what
is shown to work. When we are to share the sum of all the knowledge
available to us, we seek out where this information is and, how we open it
up best to our public. Let me be clear, so far the English Wikipedia has
been my go to project to liberate information to Wikidata. Once it it
there, it becomes easier to provide proper disambiguation and prevent false
friends to pop up later. Maintenance is easier; you do it only once for any
and all our projects.

We have come a long way in getting to the point where Commons is truly
multilingual.. My favourite example is "appelmoes" [1]. What we now really
need is have marketeers to opening Commons up to a public. We should talk
to Google and seek synergy, Commons is valuable when people are to use
legal material for illustration. They have to find it first.

The same goes for Wikisource, what is available for use to a public. How do
we leverage what we have and find all this hard work a public.

We do need research. We do need marketing research and we need a marketing
approach to getting the sum of the knowledge that we have to a public. I do
not want to argue the rights and wrongs of English Wikipedia. I trust them
to appreciate that they are part of the Wikimedia mission to get the public
well informed and provide our information with a neural point of view.
Never mind where this information is or in what language.
Thanks,
   GerardM



[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch=haswbstatement%3AP180%3DQ618345=1=1=1=1=1=1

On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 16:48, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> The question then is whether it is the community of English Wikipedia
> exerting this influence, or WMF failing to allocate resources fairly, and
> if so, why? Is it just that the massive internet presence of English
> Wikipedia exerts an irresistible gravitational attraction on the resources
> like a black hole?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Aron Demian
> Sent: 15 March 2020 12:25
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
>
> My 2 cents: Imho the pressure from English Wikipedia on other projects of
> the movement is very realistic in many kinds of matters, that I've
> experienced myself too. Other projects are not independent socially or
> culturally, the rules, practices, expectations and editorial behaviour is
> strongly related to that on enwp with all its positive *and* negative
> benefits. Often the negative benefits seem to outweigh the positive,
> unfortunately.
>
> Aron
>
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 11:17, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> wrote:
>
> > It is grossly unrealistic to blame English Wikipedia and its editing
> > community for what you appear to consider the shortcomings of other
> > Wikipedias.
>
> En: does not require or pressurise other projects to comply with its
> > editorial standards, which are those developed by en:WP, and for en:WP.
> > Other projects are free to set and use their own standards for content,
> > within the general WMF terms of use, and generally do. If they choose to
> > emulate en:WP that is their prerogative.
> > If you think that Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job of informing on the
> > subject matter it covers than other projects, and would like to convince
> > other projects that this is a realistic and rational opinion, and that
> they
> > should follow that example, you are free to produce documentary evidence
> > from experts that this is the case, and present it to the editing
> > communities of those projects for consideration.
> > If Commons are exceeding their remit by refusing to host material that is
> > not used on en:WP, that is not the policy or the fault of the en:WP
> > community who have no authority over Commons.
> > As a general rule, when discussing a topic where there is scope for
> > confusion, there is less likely for confusion to occur when you are
> > sufficiently specific when referring to the ambiguous entities.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > Sent: 15 March 2020 08:37
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Peter Southwood]

The question then is whether it is the community of English Wikipedia exerting 
this influence, or WMF failing to allocate resources fairly, and if so, why? Is 
it just that the massive internet presence of English Wikipedia exerts an 
irresistible gravitational attraction on the resources like a black hole?
Cheers, 
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Aron Demian
Sent: 15 March 2020 12:25
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

My 2 cents: Imho the pressure from English Wikipedia on other projects of
the movement is very realistic in many kinds of matters, that I've
experienced myself too. Other projects are not independent socially or
culturally, the rules, practices, expectations and editorial behaviour is
strongly related to that on enwp with all its positive *and* negative
benefits. Often the negative benefits seem to outweigh the positive,
unfortunately.

Aron

On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 11:17, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> It is grossly unrealistic to blame English Wikipedia and its editing
> community for what you appear to consider the shortcomings of other
> Wikipedias.

En: does not require or pressurise other projects to comply with its
> editorial standards, which are those developed by en:WP, and for en:WP.
> Other projects are free to set and use their own standards for content,
> within the general WMF terms of use, and generally do. If they choose to
> emulate en:WP that is their prerogative.
> If you think that Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job of informing on the
> subject matter it covers than other projects, and would like to convince
> other projects that this is a realistic and rational opinion, and that they
> should follow that example, you are free to produce documentary evidence
> from experts that this is the case, and present it to the editing
> communities of those projects for consideration.
> If Commons are exceeding their remit by refusing to host material that is
> not used on en:WP, that is not the policy or the fault of the en:WP
> community who have no authority over Commons.
> As a general rule, when discussing a topic where there is scope for
> confusion, there is less likely for confusion to occur when you are
> sufficiently specific when referring to the ambiguous entities.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: 15 March 2020 08:37
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
>
> Hoi,
> By making the point that there is no Wikipedia AND that almost universally
> but particularly people who buy into English Wikipedia consider Wikipedia
> English Wikipedia, I expected that this is understood. I then address
> English Wikipedia specifically because it is its conventions that prevent
> the sum of all our knowledge to be shared.
>
> Just to make that point specific, Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job
> informing on the total of the subject matters it covers, it is a project of
> a father who wants his children to have access to knowledge in their
> maternal language. From a Wiki point of view he deserves praise and
> gratitude in stead he gets scorn because it is against English Wikipedia
> conventions. Furthermore the approach of using data to bring knowledge in
> other languages is frustrated from within WMF.  We could do a better job, a
> job that will work for any language but it is actively discouraged. The
> result is that we do NOT share in the sum of all knowledge, not even the
> knowledge that is available to us. In other words, English Wikipedia
> conventions prevent us from working towards our stated goal.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 06:19, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Gerard, You start off by correctly specifying that Wikipedia is about 300
> > projects and make several good points about how people confuse Wikipedia
> > with English Wikipedia, how this bias adversely affects various other
> > projects, and then claim that "Wikipedia" is "universally understood to
> be
> > highly toxic".  Are you referring to all 300 odd projects, or are you
> using
> > the generic term for the specific project in the way you previously
> > objected to? Something else that is not obvious?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 2:12 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subj

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Samuel Klein]

Hello Essie,

Given all of the feedback so far, it seems we need a strong brand *network*,
more than a struggle over a single brand; and strong shared identity
*within* the communities and their contributors.

I am glad that recent discussions seem to be grounded in identity and
clarity.  If we want to start leading more with Wikipedia in outreach, in
every language of the world, *nothing* is stopping us.  But a* re*branding &
the resulting ongoing turmoil would have a predictable cost, at a time when
we have many other things to focus on, that needs to be balanced with
obvious gain.



Thank you (all) for your extensive work on this.  It would help to be even
more exquisitely clear about the expected outcomes in May and beyond.*

Wikilove, SJ

* I still think of the Wikidata newsletter as a model of regular clarity in
terms of setting expectations.



On Fri., Mar. 13, 2020, 1:33 p.m. Essie Zar,  wrote:

> Hello Everyone,
>
> There are some new updates and opportunities to engage with the Brand
> project. Thank you to Lodewijk for bringing some attention to a few of
> these opportunities. We were actively drafting this update for this group
> when your email went out.
>
> As Zack indicated in September,[1] we have been regularly discussing with
> the members of the brand network (which people can still join )[2] ideas
> around an evolved brand system with "Wikipedia" as a center point. To
> assist in this evolution of the movement brand, we chose to partner with
> Snøhetta,[3] an internationally renowned design firm known for working on
> complex and multi-stakeholder projects like the modern Library of
> Alexandria (Bibliotheca Alexandrina) and the 9/11 Memorial in New York
> City. Snøhetta has been tasked with figuring out precisely what this
> improved brand system will look like. They will release a proposed naming
> convention for movement-wide feedback in April, and a proposed design for
> movement-wide feedback in May. [4] The result of this process will be a new
> branding system that will be opt-in for affiliates.
>
> In order to have enough knowledge and context to arrive at these proposals,
> Snøhetta is reviewing feedback from the many points at which it has already
> been given, and has created a process with built-in community involvement.
> The
> process thus far has included workshops in Norway, India and online with 97
> volunteers from the brand network (movement affiliates, volunteers,
> foundation staff, and board members) reflecting 41 nations. At the
> workshops, community participants were asked to break into small groups to
> answer the question "Who are we?". Through these workshops, groups
> developed rich concepts* that they think best represent who we are as a
> movement.
>
> Now, we would like to invite you to review the 23 concepts that came out of
> the community workshops by “liking” and providing feedback on the one(s)
> you think best represent the Wikimedia movement. You can click on any
> concept to see an expanded explanation and photos of the actual concepts
> built or selected by workshop participants.
>
> Approximate time to complete this exercise is around 10-15 min.
>
> https://brandingwikipedia.org/concepts/
>
> Feel free to leave feedback directly on Snøhetta’s website, on the project
> talk page on Meta [5], or on the Brand Network [2], which will also be
> available on Meta starting next month.
>
> Snøhetta will use the feedback from the concepts to develop one single
> concept to act as a tool that will help guide the proposals around naming
> (expected for April) and around design (expected around May). They are
> scheduled to begin reviewing feedback on Tuesday, 17 March, but can
> continue taking feedback for a few more days if there is interest.
>
> We also invite you to share what free knowledge means to you in Snøhetta's
> open exercise. Please take a moment and share your thoughts in any of the
> channels mentioned.
>
>
> https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/02/17/what-does-free-knowledge-mean-to-you/
>
> Finally, we want to acknowledge that we have feedback, from various points
> in this process so far, from several communities and in several areas of
> the wikis, including Meta. We understand that some people believe that we
> don’t need this project. Our shared vision is for every single human being
> to freely share in the sum of all knowledge -- and that means billions of
> people. There are many people and cultures we still need to reach and
> include. We will need a strong well known brand to achieve the goals the
> movement has set for itself and we have a lot of work to do to get us
> there.
>
> Want to learn more? Check out the project hub at brandingwikipedia.org and
> the project page on Meta [5]. Participate in discussions on the project
> talk page, or by joining the Brand Network [2]. Also feel free to drop us a
> note at brandproj...@wikimedia.org if you have questions.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Essie Zar
>
> (from the movement brand identity 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Back your pardon. I do not blame the English Wikipedia for the
shortcomings of other Wikipedias. It does a reasonable job at informing an
English reading public. The point that I make is that we do not consider
how the bias towards English Wikipedia prevents us from reaching out and
sharing in the sum of all knowledge.

There is documentation that Cebuan Wikipedia articles are well presented
and provide a more complete coverage of the knowledge domains it covers.
Also please remember that all US places were added to English Wikipedia by
bot.

When I document bias, it is for you to understand that this bias exists. I
stopped writing in English Wikipedia because the American perspective was
more relevant that an international perspective.

At stake in this thread is making Wikipedia a central brand. I indicated
earlier that those living the English Wikipedia reality are not aware of
the negative effects of its bias. In effect you tell me to do something
about it. Well, I have been blogging about Wikimedia for the last 15 years
[1] and I learned that documentation may be relevant but it is unlikely to
make people see what is in front of them.
Thanks,
  GerardM

[1] https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/

On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 11:16, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> It is grossly unrealistic to blame English Wikipedia and its editing
> community for what you appear to consider the shortcomings of other
> Wikipedias. En: does not require or pressurise other projects to comply
> with its editorial standards, which are those developed by en:WP, and for
> en:WP. Other projects are free to set and use their own standards for
> content, within the general WMF terms of use, and generally do. If they
> choose to emulate en:WP that is their prerogative.
> If you think that Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job of informing on the
> subject matter it covers than other projects, and would like to convince
> other projects that this is a realistic and rational opinion, and that they
> should follow that example, you are free to produce documentary evidence
> from experts that this is the case, and present it to the editing
> communities of those projects for consideration.
> If Commons are exceeding their remit by refusing to host material that is
> not used on en:WP, that is not the policy or the fault of the en:WP
> community who have no authority over Commons.
> As a general rule, when discussing a topic where there is scope for
> confusion, there is less likely for confusion to occur when you are
> sufficiently specific when referring to the ambiguous entities.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: 15 March 2020 08:37
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
>
> Hoi,
> By making the point that there is no Wikipedia AND that almost universally
> but particularly people who buy into English Wikipedia consider Wikipedia
> English Wikipedia, I expected that this is understood. I then address
> English Wikipedia specifically because it is its conventions that prevent
> the sum of all our knowledge to be shared.
>
> Just to make that point specific, Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job
> informing on the total of the subject matters it covers, it is a project of
> a father who wants his children to have access to knowledge in their
> maternal language. From a Wiki point of view he deserves praise and
> gratitude in stead he gets scorn because it is against English Wikipedia
> conventions. Furthermore the approach of using data to bring knowledge in
> other languages is frustrated from within WMF.  We could do a better job, a
> job that will work for any language but it is actively discouraged. The
> result is that we do NOT share in the sum of all knowledge, not even the
> knowledge that is available to us. In other words, English Wikipedia
> conventions prevent us from working towards our stated goal.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 06:19, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Gerard, You start off by correctly specifying that Wikipedia is about 300
> > projects and make several good points about how people confuse Wikipedia
> > with English Wikipedia, how this bias adversely affects various other
> > projects, and then claim that "Wikipedia" is "universally understood to
> be
> > highly toxic".  Are you referring to all 300 odd projects, or are you
> using
> > the generic term for the specific project in the way you previously
> > objected to? Something else that is not obvious?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
&

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Aron Demian]

My 2 cents: Imho the pressure from English Wikipedia on other projects of
the movement is very realistic in many kinds of matters, that I've
experienced myself too. Other projects are not independent socially or
culturally, the rules, practices, expectations and editorial behaviour is
strongly related to that on enwp with all its positive *and* negative
benefits. Often the negative benefits seem to outweigh the positive,
unfortunately.

Aron

On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 11:17, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> It is grossly unrealistic to blame English Wikipedia and its editing
> community for what you appear to consider the shortcomings of other
> Wikipedias.

En: does not require or pressurise other projects to comply with its
> editorial standards, which are those developed by en:WP, and for en:WP.
> Other projects are free to set and use their own standards for content,
> within the general WMF terms of use, and generally do. If they choose to
> emulate en:WP that is their prerogative.
> If you think that Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job of informing on the
> subject matter it covers than other projects, and would like to convince
> other projects that this is a realistic and rational opinion, and that they
> should follow that example, you are free to produce documentary evidence
> from experts that this is the case, and present it to the editing
> communities of those projects for consideration.
> If Commons are exceeding their remit by refusing to host material that is
> not used on en:WP, that is not the policy or the fault of the en:WP
> community who have no authority over Commons.
> As a general rule, when discussing a topic where there is scope for
> confusion, there is less likely for confusion to occur when you are
> sufficiently specific when referring to the ambiguous entities.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: 15 March 2020 08:37
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
>
> Hoi,
> By making the point that there is no Wikipedia AND that almost universally
> but particularly people who buy into English Wikipedia consider Wikipedia
> English Wikipedia, I expected that this is understood. I then address
> English Wikipedia specifically because it is its conventions that prevent
> the sum of all our knowledge to be shared.
>
> Just to make that point specific, Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job
> informing on the total of the subject matters it covers, it is a project of
> a father who wants his children to have access to knowledge in their
> maternal language. From a Wiki point of view he deserves praise and
> gratitude in stead he gets scorn because it is against English Wikipedia
> conventions. Furthermore the approach of using data to bring knowledge in
> other languages is frustrated from within WMF.  We could do a better job, a
> job that will work for any language but it is actively discouraged. The
> result is that we do NOT share in the sum of all knowledge, not even the
> knowledge that is available to us. In other words, English Wikipedia
> conventions prevent us from working towards our stated goal.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 06:19, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Gerard, You start off by correctly specifying that Wikipedia is about 300
> > projects and make several good points about how people confuse Wikipedia
> > with English Wikipedia, how this bias adversely affects various other
> > projects, and then claim that "Wikipedia" is "universally understood to
> be
> > highly toxic".  Are you referring to all 300 odd projects, or are you
> using
> > the generic term for the specific project in the way you previously
> > objected to? Something else that is not obvious?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 2:12 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
> >
> > Hoi,
> > Essie, the work done by Snøhetta centres on the notion of Wikipedia as a
> > unifying brand. The problem is that Wikipedia on its own is 300 projects
> > and that for many, if not most people English Wikipedia *is *Wikipedia.
> >
> > When we are all to be Wikipedia we will all suffer from the bias that
> > English Wikipedia brings us. The problem with bias is that the negative
> > effects are not felt, considered by those people 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Peter Southwood]

It is grossly unrealistic to blame English Wikipedia and its editing community 
for what you appear to consider the shortcomings of other Wikipedias. En: does 
not require or pressurise other projects to comply with its editorial 
standards, which are those developed by en:WP, and for en:WP. Other projects 
are free to set and use their own standards for content, within the general WMF 
terms of use, and generally do. If they choose to emulate en:WP that is their 
prerogative.
If you think that Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job of informing on the 
subject matter it covers than other projects, and would like to convince other 
projects that this is a realistic and rational opinion, and that they should 
follow that example, you are free to produce documentary evidence from experts 
that this is the case, and present it to the editing communities of those 
projects for consideration. 
If Commons are exceeding their remit by refusing to host material that is not 
used on en:WP, that is not the policy or the fault of the en:WP community who 
have no authority over Commons.
As a general rule, when discussing a topic where there is scope for confusion, 
there is less likely for confusion to occur when you are sufficiently specific 
when referring to the ambiguous entities.
Cheers, 
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: 15 March 2020 08:37
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Hoi,
By making the point that there is no Wikipedia AND that almost universally
but particularly people who buy into English Wikipedia consider Wikipedia
English Wikipedia, I expected that this is understood. I then address
English Wikipedia specifically because it is its conventions that prevent
the sum of all our knowledge to be shared.

Just to make that point specific, Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job
informing on the total of the subject matters it covers, it is a project of
a father who wants his children to have access to knowledge in their
maternal language. From a Wiki point of view he deserves praise and
gratitude in stead he gets scorn because it is against English Wikipedia
conventions. Furthermore the approach of using data to bring knowledge in
other languages is frustrated from within WMF.  We could do a better job, a
job that will work for any language but it is actively discouraged. The
result is that we do NOT share in the sum of all knowledge, not even the
knowledge that is available to us. In other words, English Wikipedia
conventions prevent us from working towards our stated goal.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 06:19, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Gerard, You start off by correctly specifying that Wikipedia is about 300
> projects and make several good points about how people confuse Wikipedia
> with English Wikipedia, how this bias adversely affects various other
> projects, and then claim that "Wikipedia" is "universally understood to be
> highly toxic".  Are you referring to all 300 odd projects, or are you using
> the generic term for the specific project in the way you previously
> objected to? Something else that is not obvious?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 2:12 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
>
> Hoi,
> Essie, the work done by Snøhetta centres on the notion of Wikipedia as a
> unifying brand. The problem is that Wikipedia on its own is 300 projects
> and that for many, if not most people English Wikipedia *is *Wikipedia.
>
> When we are all to be Wikipedia we will all suffer from the bias that
> English Wikipedia brings us. The problem with bias is that the negative
> effects are not felt, considered by those people who self identify with
> English Wikipedia.
>
> * Research centres on English Wikipedia, when research is done for projects
> other than English Wikipedia, it is hard to get research published
> * New functionality is almost always written for the English Wikipedia, the
> notion of the "other languages" is often not considered in the architecture
> * It is assumed that functionality works for projects other than Wikipedia,
> specific functionality is hardly ever developed
> * In OTRS, the notions of notability are hard coded for English notability.
> Consequently many pictures have been removed that were explicitly requested
> for use with Wikidata
> * there has been no marketing for other Wikimedia products - products. Many
> Wikisource books are available in final form. We do not serve a purpose
> because we do not seek an audience for them
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
By making the point that there is no Wikipedia AND that almost universally
but particularly people who buy into English Wikipedia consider Wikipedia
English Wikipedia, I expected that this is understood. I then address
English Wikipedia specifically because it is its conventions that prevent
the sum of all our knowledge to be shared.

Just to make that point specific, Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job
informing on the total of the subject matters it covers, it is a project of
a father who wants his children to have access to knowledge in their
maternal language. From a Wiki point of view he deserves praise and
gratitude in stead he gets scorn because it is against English Wikipedia
conventions. Furthermore the approach of using data to bring knowledge in
other languages is frustrated from within WMF.  We could do a better job, a
job that will work for any language but it is actively discouraged. The
result is that we do NOT share in the sum of all knowledge, not even the
knowledge that is available to us. In other words, English Wikipedia
conventions prevent us from working towards our stated goal.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 06:19, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Gerard, You start off by correctly specifying that Wikipedia is about 300
> projects and make several good points about how people confuse Wikipedia
> with English Wikipedia, how this bias adversely affects various other
> projects, and then claim that "Wikipedia" is "universally understood to be
> highly toxic".  Are you referring to all 300 odd projects, or are you using
> the generic term for the specific project in the way you previously
> objected to? Something else that is not obvious?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 2:12 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
>
> Hoi,
> Essie, the work done by Snøhetta centres on the notion of Wikipedia as a
> unifying brand. The problem is that Wikipedia on its own is 300 projects
> and that for many, if not most people English Wikipedia *is *Wikipedia.
>
> When we are all to be Wikipedia we will all suffer from the bias that
> English Wikipedia brings us. The problem with bias is that the negative
> effects are not felt, considered by those people who self identify with
> English Wikipedia.
>
> * Research centres on English Wikipedia, when research is done for projects
> other than English Wikipedia, it is hard to get research published
> * New functionality is almost always written for the English Wikipedia, the
> notion of the "other languages" is often not considered in the architecture
> * It is assumed that functionality works for projects other than Wikipedia,
> specific functionality is hardly ever developed
> * In OTRS, the notions of notability are hard coded for English notability.
> Consequently many pictures have been removed that were explicitly requested
> for use with Wikidata
> * there has been no marketing for other Wikimedia products - products. Many
> Wikisource books are available in final form. We do not serve a purpose
> because we do not seek an audience for them
> * even though internationalisation and localisation for MediaWiki is really
> good, we do not consider how we can make use of data in other languages.
>
> It is universally understood that Wikipedia is highly toxic and it may be
> that for external marketing Wikipedia makes sense. Internally I will
> welcome a unified message only once English Wikipedia accepts that its
> consensus is not considered as "Wikipedia" consensus.. Our aim is to share
> in the sum of all knowledge and it is not only in English and it is not
> what English Wikipedia deems notable.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 18:33, Essie Zar  wrote:
>
> > Hello Everyone,
> >
> > There are some new updates and opportunities to engage with the Brand
> > project. Thank you to Lodewijk for bringing some attention to a few of
> > these opportunities. We were actively drafting this update for this group
> > when your email went out.
> >
> > As Zack indicated in September,[1] we have been regularly discussing with
> > the members of the brand network (which people can still join )[2] ideas
> > around an evolved brand system with "Wikipedia" as a center point. To
> > assist in this evolution of the movement brand, we chose to partner with
> > Snøhetta,[3] an internationally renowned design firm known for working on
> > complex and multi-stakeholder projects like the modern Library of
> > Alexandria (Bibliotheca Alexandri

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Peter Southwood]

Gerard, You start off by correctly specifying that Wikipedia is about 300 
projects and make several good points about how people confuse Wikipedia with 
English Wikipedia, how this bias adversely affects various other projects, and 
then claim that "Wikipedia" is "universally understood to be highly toxic".  
Are you referring to all 300 odd projects, or are you using the generic term 
for the specific project in the way you previously objected to? Something else 
that is not obvious?
Cheers, 
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 2:12 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Hoi,
Essie, the work done by Snøhetta centres on the notion of Wikipedia as a
unifying brand. The problem is that Wikipedia on its own is 300 projects
and that for many, if not most people English Wikipedia *is *Wikipedia.

When we are all to be Wikipedia we will all suffer from the bias that
English Wikipedia brings us. The problem with bias is that the negative
effects are not felt, considered by those people who self identify with
English Wikipedia.

* Research centres on English Wikipedia, when research is done for projects
other than English Wikipedia, it is hard to get research published
* New functionality is almost always written for the English Wikipedia, the
notion of the "other languages" is often not considered in the architecture
* It is assumed that functionality works for projects other than Wikipedia,
specific functionality is hardly ever developed
* In OTRS, the notions of notability are hard coded for English notability.
Consequently many pictures have been removed that were explicitly requested
for use with Wikidata
* there has been no marketing for other Wikimedia products - products. Many
Wikisource books are available in final form. We do not serve a purpose
because we do not seek an audience for them
* even though internationalisation and localisation for MediaWiki is really
good, we do not consider how we can make use of data in other languages.

It is universally understood that Wikipedia is highly toxic and it may be
that for external marketing Wikipedia makes sense. Internally I will
welcome a unified message only once English Wikipedia accepts that its
consensus is not considered as "Wikipedia" consensus.. Our aim is to share
in the sum of all knowledge and it is not only in English and it is not
what English Wikipedia deems notable.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 18:33, Essie Zar  wrote:

> Hello Everyone,
>
> There are some new updates and opportunities to engage with the Brand
> project. Thank you to Lodewijk for bringing some attention to a few of
> these opportunities. We were actively drafting this update for this group
> when your email went out.
>
> As Zack indicated in September,[1] we have been regularly discussing with
> the members of the brand network (which people can still join )[2] ideas
> around an evolved brand system with "Wikipedia" as a center point. To
> assist in this evolution of the movement brand, we chose to partner with
> Snøhetta,[3] an internationally renowned design firm known for working on
> complex and multi-stakeholder projects like the modern Library of
> Alexandria (Bibliotheca Alexandrina) and the 9/11 Memorial in New York
> City. Snøhetta has been tasked with figuring out precisely what this
> improved brand system will look like. They will release a proposed naming
> convention for movement-wide feedback in April, and a proposed design for
> movement-wide feedback in May. [4] The result of this process will be a new
> branding system that will be opt-in for affiliates.
>
> In order to have enough knowledge and context to arrive at these proposals,
> Snøhetta is reviewing feedback from the many points at which it has already
> been given, and has created a process with built-in community involvement.
> The
> process thus far has included workshops in Norway, India and online with 97
> volunteers from the brand network (movement affiliates, volunteers,
> foundation staff, and board members) reflecting 41 nations. At the
> workshops, community participants were asked to break into small groups to
> answer the question "Who are we?". Through these workshops, groups
> developed rich concepts* that they think best represent who we are as a
> movement.
>
> Now, we would like to invite you to review the 23 concepts that came out of
> the community workshops by “liking” and providing feedback on the one(s)
> you think best represent the Wikimedia movement. You can click on any
> concept to see an expanded explanation and photos of the actual concepts
> built or selected by workshop participants.
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Peter Southwood]

I put a reply on the "What does free knowledge mean to you" questionnaire, but 
it did not turn up on the list below the edit box. Is the set of published 
replies being censored or cherry-picked to remove anything that someone does 
not like?
Cheers, 
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Essie Zar
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 12:48 AM
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Hello Everyone,

There are some new updates and opportunities to engage with the Brand
project. Thank you to Lodewijk for bringing some attention to a few of
these opportunities. We were actively drafting this update for this group
when your email went out.

As Zack indicated in September,[1] we have been regularly discussing with
the members of the brand network (which people can still join )[2] ideas
around an evolved brand system with "Wikipedia" as a center point. To
assist in this evolution of the movement brand, we chose to partner with
Snøhetta,[3] an internationally renowned design firm known for working on
complex and multi-stakeholder projects like the modern Library of
Alexandria (Bibliotheca Alexandrina) and the 9/11 Memorial in New York
City. Snøhetta has been tasked with figuring out precisely what this
improved brand system will look like. They will release a proposed naming
convention for movement-wide feedback in April, and a proposed design for
movement-wide feedback in May. [4] The result of this process will be a new
branding system that will be opt-in for affiliates.

In order to have enough knowledge and context to arrive at these proposals,
Snøhetta is reviewing feedback from the many points at which it has already
been given, and has created a process with built-in community involvement. The
process thus far has included workshops in Norway, India and online with 97
volunteers from the brand network (movement affiliates, volunteers,
foundation staff, and board members) reflecting 41 nations. At the
workshops, community participants were asked to break into small groups to
answer the question "Who are we?". Through these workshops, groups
developed rich concepts* that they think best represent who we are as a
movement.

Now, we would like to invite you to review the 23 concepts that came out of
the community workshops by “liking” and providing feedback on the one(s)
you think best represent the Wikimedia movement. You can click on any
concept to see an expanded explanation and photos of the actual concepts
built or selected by workshop participants.

Approximate time to complete this exercise is around 10-15 min.

https://brandingwikipedia.org/concepts/

Feel free to leave feedback directly on Snøhetta’s website, on the project
talk page on Meta [5], or on the Brand Network [2], which will also be
available on Meta starting next month.

Snøhetta will use the feedback from the concepts to develop one single
concept to act as a tool that will help guide the proposals around naming
(expected for April) and around design (expected around May). They are
scheduled to begin reviewing feedback on Tuesday, 17 March, but can
continue taking feedback for a few more days if there is interest.

We also invite you to share what free knowledge means to you in Snøhetta's
open exercise. Please take a moment and share your thoughts in any of the
channels mentioned.

https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/02/17/what-does-free-knowledge-mean-to-you/

Finally, we want to acknowledge that we have feedback, from various points
in this process so far, from several communities and in several areas of
the wikis, including Meta. We understand that some people believe that we
don’t need this project. Our shared vision is for every single human being
to freely share in the sum of all knowledge -- and that means billions of
people. There are many people and cultures we still need to reach and
include. We will need a strong well known brand to achieve the goals the
movement has set for itself and we have a lot of work to do to get us there.

Want to learn more? Check out the project hub at brandingwikipedia.org and
the project page on Meta [5]. Participate in discussions on the project
talk page, or by joining the Brand Network [2]. Also feel free to drop us a
note at brandproj...@wikimedia.org if you have questions.

Thanks!

Essie Zar

(from the movement brand identity project team)



[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-September/093382.html

[2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediabrandnetwork/

[3] https://snohetta.com/

[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#Process

[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project

* What is a concept?
A tool making the complex more understandable.

Concepts make complex subjects more understandable. They mana

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Fæ]

The movement has events a couple of magnitudes more important and
urgent to spend time on.

As for being invited to take part in a "brand network" discussion, of
all places on *Facebook*, this is so fundamentally wrong, I would
think it was a joke.

WMF management, stop flushing away the donor's money on this, please.
It has already been overwhelmingly rejected, failed, and not firmly
ending it makes you appear unable to stop paying consultants to make
up more marketing jargon nonsense to justify their invoice.

Fae

On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 17:33, Essie Zar  wrote:
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> There are some new updates and opportunities to engage with the Brand
> project. Thank you to Lodewijk for bringing some attention to a few of
> these opportunities. We were actively drafting this update for this group
> when your email went out.
>
> As Zack indicated in September,[1] we have been regularly discussing with
> the members of the brand network (which people can still join )[2] ideas
> around an evolved brand system with "Wikipedia" as a center point. To
> assist in this evolution of the movement brand, we chose to partner with
> Snøhetta,[3] an internationally renowned design firm known for working on
> complex and multi-stakeholder projects like the modern Library of
> Alexandria (Bibliotheca Alexandrina) and the 9/11 Memorial in New York
> City. Snøhetta has been tasked with figuring out precisely what this
> improved brand system will look like. They will release a proposed naming
> convention for movement-wide feedback in April, and a proposed design for
> movement-wide feedback in May. [4] The result of this process will be a new
> branding system that will be opt-in for affiliates.
>
> In order to have enough knowledge and context to arrive at these proposals,
> Snøhetta is reviewing feedback from the many points at which it has already
> been given, and has created a process with built-in community involvement. The
> process thus far has included workshops in Norway, India and online with 97
> volunteers from the brand network (movement affiliates, volunteers,
> foundation staff, and board members) reflecting 41 nations. At the
> workshops, community participants were asked to break into small groups to
> answer the question "Who are we?". Through these workshops, groups
> developed rich concepts* that they think best represent who we are as a
> movement.
>
> Now, we would like to invite you to review the 23 concepts that came out of
> the community workshops by “liking” and providing feedback on the one(s)
> you think best represent the Wikimedia movement. You can click on any
> concept to see an expanded explanation and photos of the actual concepts
> built or selected by workshop participants.
>
> Approximate time to complete this exercise is around 10-15 min.
>
> https://brandingwikipedia.org/concepts/
>
> Feel free to leave feedback directly on Snøhetta’s website, on the project
> talk page on Meta [5], or on the Brand Network [2], which will also be
> available on Meta starting next month.
>
> Snøhetta will use the feedback from the concepts to develop one single
> concept to act as a tool that will help guide the proposals around naming
> (expected for April) and around design (expected around May). They are
> scheduled to begin reviewing feedback on Tuesday, 17 March, but can
> continue taking feedback for a few more days if there is interest.
>
> We also invite you to share what free knowledge means to you in Snøhetta's
> open exercise. Please take a moment and share your thoughts in any of the
> channels mentioned.
>
> https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/02/17/what-does-free-knowledge-mean-to-you/
>
> Finally, we want to acknowledge that we have feedback, from various points
> in this process so far, from several communities and in several areas of
> the wikis, including Meta. We understand that some people believe that we
> don’t need this project. Our shared vision is for every single human being
> to freely share in the sum of all knowledge -- and that means billions of
> people. There are many people and cultures we still need to reach and
> include. We will need a strong well known brand to achieve the goals the
> movement has set for itself and we have a lot of work to do to get us there.
>
> Want to learn more? Check out the project hub at brandingwikipedia.org and
> the project page on Meta [5]. Participate in discussions on the project
> talk page, or by joining the Brand Network [2]. Also feel free to drop us a
> note at brandproj...@wikimedia.org if you have questions.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Essie Zar
>
> (from the movement brand identity project team)
>
>
>
> [1]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-September/093382.html
>
> [2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediabrandnetwork/
>
> [3] https://snohetta.com/
>
> [4]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#Process
>
> [5]
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Peter Southwood]

Perhaps you do, but do the volunteer communities of the projects you would like 
to rename share this enthusiasm?
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Dennis During
Sent: 14 March 2020 00:20
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

I, for one, welcome Wikipedia Dictionary, Wikipedia Source, Wikipedia
Species, Wikipedia Commons.

Why is it, though, that others go the other way? like American Airlines
subordinating to AMR, Google to Alphabet.  Citibank went in a direction the
opposite of the way that WMF is going, with Citi becoming a prefix with
multiple uses.

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 3:48 PM Pine W  wrote:

> Although Mike and I have differences of opinion about centralizing on
> the "Wikipedia" brand, one way in which I agree with Mike is that
> there are ways to have branding discussions that are not themselves
> controversial. Even if consensus was not reached, I for one would be
> more accepting of the process.
>
> Some departments in WMF seem to be more on board with regards to
> process than others. In particular, I think that Audiences these days
> generally does a good job, and also I like Tech News.
>
> Outside of WMF, the Wikidata team at WMDE produces very informative
> newsletters each week. They seem to do good work without spending
> money on outside consultants.
>
> So, why all of these issues in WMF Communications? I don't get it.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Dennis C. During
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Todd Allen]

Essie,

The answer to that proposal was a clear, unambiguous "no". Not "keep
asking".

Immediately stop this process. And don't use an agency blocked for spamming
our projects.

Todd

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020, 11:33 AM Essie Zar  wrote:

> Hello Everyone,
>
> There are some new updates and opportunities to engage with the Brand
> project. Thank you to Lodewijk for bringing some attention to a few of
> these opportunities. We were actively drafting this update for this group
> when your email went out.
>
> As Zack indicated in September,[1] we have been regularly discussing with
> the members of the brand network (which people can still join )[2] ideas
> around an evolved brand system with "Wikipedia" as a center point. To
> assist in this evolution of the movement brand, we chose to partner with
> Snøhetta,[3] an internationally renowned design firm known for working on
> complex and multi-stakeholder projects like the modern Library of
> Alexandria (Bibliotheca Alexandrina) and the 9/11 Memorial in New York
> City. Snøhetta has been tasked with figuring out precisely what this
> improved brand system will look like. They will release a proposed naming
> convention for movement-wide feedback in April, and a proposed design for
> movement-wide feedback in May. [4] The result of this process will be a new
> branding system that will be opt-in for affiliates.
>
> In order to have enough knowledge and context to arrive at these proposals,
> Snøhetta is reviewing feedback from the many points at which it has already
> been given, and has created a process with built-in community involvement.
> The
> process thus far has included workshops in Norway, India and online with 97
> volunteers from the brand network (movement affiliates, volunteers,
> foundation staff, and board members) reflecting 41 nations. At the
> workshops, community participants were asked to break into small groups to
> answer the question "Who are we?". Through these workshops, groups
> developed rich concepts* that they think best represent who we are as a
> movement.
>
> Now, we would like to invite you to review the 23 concepts that came out of
> the community workshops by “liking” and providing feedback on the one(s)
> you think best represent the Wikimedia movement. You can click on any
> concept to see an expanded explanation and photos of the actual concepts
> built or selected by workshop participants.
>
> Approximate time to complete this exercise is around 10-15 min.
>
> https://brandingwikipedia.org/concepts/
>
> Feel free to leave feedback directly on Snøhetta’s website, on the project
> talk page on Meta [5], or on the Brand Network [2], which will also be
> available on Meta starting next month.
>
> Snøhetta will use the feedback from the concepts to develop one single
> concept to act as a tool that will help guide the proposals around naming
> (expected for April) and around design (expected around May). They are
> scheduled to begin reviewing feedback on Tuesday, 17 March, but can
> continue taking feedback for a few more days if there is interest.
>
> We also invite you to share what free knowledge means to you in Snøhetta's
> open exercise. Please take a moment and share your thoughts in any of the
> channels mentioned.
>
>
> https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/02/17/what-does-free-knowledge-mean-to-you/
>
> Finally, we want to acknowledge that we have feedback, from various points
> in this process so far, from several communities and in several areas of
> the wikis, including Meta. We understand that some people believe that we
> don’t need this project. Our shared vision is for every single human being
> to freely share in the sum of all knowledge -- and that means billions of
> people. There are many people and cultures we still need to reach and
> include. We will need a strong well known brand to achieve the goals the
> movement has set for itself and we have a lot of work to do to get us
> there.
>
> Want to learn more? Check out the project hub at brandingwikipedia.org and
> the project page on Meta [5]. Participate in discussions on the project
> talk page, or by joining the Brand Network [2]. Also feel free to drop us a
> note at brandproj...@wikimedia.org if you have questions.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Essie Zar
>
> (from the movement brand identity project team)
>
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-September/093382.html
>
> [2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediabrandnetwork/
>
> [3] https://snohetta.com/
>
> [4]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#Process
>
> [5]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
>
> * What is a concept?
> A tool making the complex more understandable.
>
> Concepts make complex subjects more understandable. They manage to
> consolidate vast amounts of facts, data and details into a singular
> definition in its context. By creating concepts we allow 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Essie, the work done by Snøhetta centres on the notion of Wikipedia as a
unifying brand. The problem is that Wikipedia on its own is 300 projects
and that for many, if not most people English Wikipedia *is *Wikipedia.

When we are all to be Wikipedia we will all suffer from the bias that
English Wikipedia brings us. The problem with bias is that the negative
effects are not felt, considered by those people who self identify with
English Wikipedia.

* Research centres on English Wikipedia, when research is done for projects
other than English Wikipedia, it is hard to get research published
* New functionality is almost always written for the English Wikipedia, the
notion of the "other languages" is often not considered in the architecture
* It is assumed that functionality works for projects other than Wikipedia,
specific functionality is hardly ever developed
* In OTRS, the notions of notability are hard coded for English notability.
Consequently many pictures have been removed that were explicitly requested
for use with Wikidata
* there has been no marketing for other Wikimedia products - products. Many
Wikisource books are available in final form. We do not serve a purpose
because we do not seek an audience for them
* even though internationalisation and localisation for MediaWiki is really
good, we do not consider how we can make use of data in other languages.

It is universally understood that Wikipedia is highly toxic and it may be
that for external marketing Wikipedia makes sense. Internally I will
welcome a unified message only once English Wikipedia accepts that its
consensus is not considered as "Wikipedia" consensus.. Our aim is to share
in the sum of all knowledge and it is not only in English and it is not
what English Wikipedia deems notable.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 18:33, Essie Zar  wrote:

> Hello Everyone,
>
> There are some new updates and opportunities to engage with the Brand
> project. Thank you to Lodewijk for bringing some attention to a few of
> these opportunities. We were actively drafting this update for this group
> when your email went out.
>
> As Zack indicated in September,[1] we have been regularly discussing with
> the members of the brand network (which people can still join )[2] ideas
> around an evolved brand system with "Wikipedia" as a center point. To
> assist in this evolution of the movement brand, we chose to partner with
> Snøhetta,[3] an internationally renowned design firm known for working on
> complex and multi-stakeholder projects like the modern Library of
> Alexandria (Bibliotheca Alexandrina) and the 9/11 Memorial in New York
> City. Snøhetta has been tasked with figuring out precisely what this
> improved brand system will look like. They will release a proposed naming
> convention for movement-wide feedback in April, and a proposed design for
> movement-wide feedback in May. [4] The result of this process will be a new
> branding system that will be opt-in for affiliates.
>
> In order to have enough knowledge and context to arrive at these proposals,
> Snøhetta is reviewing feedback from the many points at which it has already
> been given, and has created a process with built-in community involvement.
> The
> process thus far has included workshops in Norway, India and online with 97
> volunteers from the brand network (movement affiliates, volunteers,
> foundation staff, and board members) reflecting 41 nations. At the
> workshops, community participants were asked to break into small groups to
> answer the question "Who are we?". Through these workshops, groups
> developed rich concepts* that they think best represent who we are as a
> movement.
>
> Now, we would like to invite you to review the 23 concepts that came out of
> the community workshops by “liking” and providing feedback on the one(s)
> you think best represent the Wikimedia movement. You can click on any
> concept to see an expanded explanation and photos of the actual concepts
> built or selected by workshop participants.
>
> Approximate time to complete this exercise is around 10-15 min.
>
> https://brandingwikipedia.org/concepts/
>
> Feel free to leave feedback directly on Snøhetta’s website, on the project
> talk page on Meta [5], or on the Brand Network [2], which will also be
> available on Meta starting next month.
>
> Snøhetta will use the feedback from the concepts to develop one single
> concept to act as a tool that will help guide the proposals around naming
> (expected for April) and around design (expected around May). They are
> scheduled to begin reviewing feedback on Tuesday, 17 March, but can
> continue taking feedback for a few more days if there is interest.
>
> We also invite you to share what free knowledge means to you in Snøhetta's
> open exercise. Please take a moment and share your thoughts in any of the
> channels mentioned.
>
>
> https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/02/17/what-does-free-knowledge-mean-to-you/
>
> Finally, we want to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Peter Southwood]

I would agree with this in principle. From what I have seen so far, it looks 
like either Snøhetta have not done their homework on how we operate, or they 
have the arrogance of PR agencies, don't care, and plan to spin their way 
through with smoke and mirrors, flashy pages with lots of buzz, little content 
and all the dialogue they can't avoid. Maybe I am wrong, and they have just 
been badly briefed. Who can tell from the outside? Block evasion does not bode 
well for their understanding of the community.
Cheers, 
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Pine W
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 8:13 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Hello,

First, a disclaimer that these comments aren't directed personally at
you, Essie.

Even if money was unlimited, I thought that Snøhetta deserved the
community's trust, and I felt that WMF was a good steward of resources
(all of which are questionable), I don't think that this project is a
good idea. Wikidata is an increasingly important component of the
Wikiverse, and there are a some problems with WMF rebranding itself as
the Wikipedia Foundation including the risk to the communities and
affiliates from WMF's political adventures, governance problems, and
occasional high profile clashes with the community. I don't think that
the costs or the risks here make sense, I wouldn't involve Snøhetta
given its apparent block evasion on English Wikipedia, and I've been
unimpressed with WMF's handling of this process during the past few
months.

I am fine with discussions about branding, but not with this program
in its current form.

Given the choice, I would freeze this project and spending associated
with it pending a Meta RfC regarding the community's view on whether
this project should continue. If the community wants a branding
project to continue, I would let the community decide on the project's
parameters and budget, and what if any consultant should be involved.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Dennis During]

I, for one, welcome Wikipedia Dictionary, Wikipedia Source, Wikipedia
Species, Wikipedia Commons.

Why is it, though, that others go the other way? like American Airlines
subordinating to AMR, Google to Alphabet.  Citibank went in a direction the
opposite of the way that WMF is going, with Citi becoming a prefix with
multiple uses.

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 3:48 PM Pine W  wrote:

> Although Mike and I have differences of opinion about centralizing on
> the "Wikipedia" brand, one way in which I agree with Mike is that
> there are ways to have branding discussions that are not themselves
> controversial. Even if consensus was not reached, I for one would be
> more accepting of the process.
>
> Some departments in WMF seem to be more on board with regards to
> process than others. In particular, I think that Audiences these days
> generally does a good job, and also I like Tech News.
>
> Outside of WMF, the Wikidata team at WMDE produces very informative
> newsletters each week. They seem to do good work without spending
> money on outside consultants.
>
> So, why all of these issues in WMF Communications? I don't get it.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
Dennis C. During
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Yaroslav Blanter]

We just had an RfC on Meta which gave 90% opposes. I do not see how any
serious rebranding discussions could still be happening after this result
has become apparent. For me personally, the question is closed at least for
several years.

Best
Yaroslav

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 8:48 PM Pine W  wrote:

> Although Mike and I have differences of opinion about centralizing on
> the "Wikipedia" brand, one way in which I agree with Mike is that
> there are ways to have branding discussions that are not themselves
> controversial. Even if consensus was not reached, I for one would be
> more accepting of the process.
>
> Some departments in WMF seem to be more on board with regards to
> process than others. In particular, I think that Audiences these days
> generally does a good job, and also I like Tech News.
>
> Outside of WMF, the Wikidata team at WMDE produces very informative
> newsletters each week. They seem to do good work without spending
> money on outside consultants.
>
> So, why all of these issues in WMF Communications? I don't get it.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Pine W]

Although Mike and I have differences of opinion about centralizing on
the "Wikipedia" brand, one way in which I agree with Mike is that
there are ways to have branding discussions that are not themselves
controversial. Even if consensus was not reached, I for one would be
more accepting of the process.

Some departments in WMF seem to be more on board with regards to
process than others. In particular, I think that Audiences these days
generally does a good job, and also I like Tech News.

Outside of WMF, the Wikidata team at WMDE produces very informative
newsletters each week. They seem to do good work without spending
money on outside consultants.

So, why all of these issues in WMF Communications? I don't get it.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Michael Peel]

Hi all,

I’m on the other side of things - I think it would be good to simplify our 
branding, and ‘Wikipedia’ is the obvious brand to go with. I’d love to see us 
talking about ‘Wikipedia Data’, and ‘Wikipedia Media, etc. (maybe with obvious 
cross-wiki tabs at the top of the projects!), without the confusion of 
‘Wikileaks’, ‘Wikia’, etc. I don’t think that a yes/no Meta RfC on this project 
right now would help, as there would be an obvious knee-jerk reaction.

I also don’t think that the ‘brandingwikipedia’ website helps, though. If you 
want to ask the general public about Wikipedia branding, it makes sense - you 
can just click ‘like’ to the suggested tags and maybe leave a comment, and 
that’s it. However, that’s not how the Wikimedia community works, and that’s 
the population that you need to convince.

If you want this to work, then I think there’s two ways to go: start 
discussions on-wiki about the pros and cons, provide data in response to 
questions and emotional responses, and help the community reach a consensus 
with you about the way forward; or just go ahead and make the change, weather 
the reactions, and see what happens. I suspect only one of those approaches 
would work in the long-run, but either would be better than having off-wiki 
processes and then claiming that they have consensus. Of course, you can try an 
approach with one Wikimedia project at a time, and see how it goes.

Thanks,
Mike

> On 13 Mar 2020, at 18:12, Pine W  wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> First, a disclaimer that these comments aren't directed personally at
> you, Essie.
> 
> Even if money was unlimited, I thought that Snøhetta deserved the
> community's trust, and I felt that WMF was a good steward of resources
> (all of which are questionable), I don't think that this project is a
> good idea. Wikidata is an increasingly important component of the
> Wikiverse, and there are a some problems with WMF rebranding itself as
> the Wikipedia Foundation including the risk to the communities and
> affiliates from WMF's political adventures, governance problems, and
> occasional high profile clashes with the community. I don't think that
> the costs or the risks here make sense, I wouldn't involve Snøhetta
> given its apparent block evasion on English Wikipedia, and I've been
> unimpressed with WMF's handling of this process during the past few
> months.
> 
> I am fine with discussions about branding, but not with this program
> in its current form.
> 
> Given the choice, I would freeze this project and spending associated
> with it pending a Meta RfC regarding the community's view on whether
> this project should continue. If the community wants a branding
> project to continue, I would let the community decide on the project's
> parameters and budget, and what if any consultant should be involved.
> 
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Pine W]

Hello,

First, a disclaimer that these comments aren't directed personally at
you, Essie.

Even if money was unlimited, I thought that Snøhetta deserved the
community's trust, and I felt that WMF was a good steward of resources
(all of which are questionable), I don't think that this project is a
good idea. Wikidata is an increasingly important component of the
Wikiverse, and there are a some problems with WMF rebranding itself as
the Wikipedia Foundation including the risk to the communities and
affiliates from WMF's political adventures, governance problems, and
occasional high profile clashes with the community. I don't think that
the costs or the risks here make sense, I wouldn't involve Snøhetta
given its apparent block evasion on English Wikipedia, and I've been
unimpressed with WMF's handling of this process during the past few
months.

I am fine with discussions about branding, but not with this program
in its current form.

Given the choice, I would freeze this project and spending associated
with it pending a Meta RfC regarding the community's view on whether
this project should continue. If the community wants a branding
project to continue, I would let the community decide on the project's
parameters and budget, and what if any consultant should be involved.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Essie Zar]

Hello Everyone,

There are some new updates and opportunities to engage with the Brand
project. Thank you to Lodewijk for bringing some attention to a few of
these opportunities. We were actively drafting this update for this group
when your email went out.

As Zack indicated in September,[1] we have been regularly discussing with
the members of the brand network (which people can still join )[2] ideas
around an evolved brand system with "Wikipedia" as a center point. To
assist in this evolution of the movement brand, we chose to partner with
Snøhetta,[3] an internationally renowned design firm known for working on
complex and multi-stakeholder projects like the modern Library of
Alexandria (Bibliotheca Alexandrina) and the 9/11 Memorial in New York
City. Snøhetta has been tasked with figuring out precisely what this
improved brand system will look like. They will release a proposed naming
convention for movement-wide feedback in April, and a proposed design for
movement-wide feedback in May. [4] The result of this process will be a new
branding system that will be opt-in for affiliates.

In order to have enough knowledge and context to arrive at these proposals,
Snøhetta is reviewing feedback from the many points at which it has already
been given, and has created a process with built-in community involvement. The
process thus far has included workshops in Norway, India and online with 97
volunteers from the brand network (movement affiliates, volunteers,
foundation staff, and board members) reflecting 41 nations. At the
workshops, community participants were asked to break into small groups to
answer the question "Who are we?". Through these workshops, groups
developed rich concepts* that they think best represent who we are as a
movement.

Now, we would like to invite you to review the 23 concepts that came out of
the community workshops by “liking” and providing feedback on the one(s)
you think best represent the Wikimedia movement. You can click on any
concept to see an expanded explanation and photos of the actual concepts
built or selected by workshop participants.

Approximate time to complete this exercise is around 10-15 min.

https://brandingwikipedia.org/concepts/

Feel free to leave feedback directly on Snøhetta’s website, on the project
talk page on Meta [5], or on the Brand Network [2], which will also be
available on Meta starting next month.

Snøhetta will use the feedback from the concepts to develop one single
concept to act as a tool that will help guide the proposals around naming
(expected for April) and around design (expected around May). They are
scheduled to begin reviewing feedback on Tuesday, 17 March, but can
continue taking feedback for a few more days if there is interest.

We also invite you to share what free knowledge means to you in Snøhetta's
open exercise. Please take a moment and share your thoughts in any of the
channels mentioned.

https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/02/17/what-does-free-knowledge-mean-to-you/

Finally, we want to acknowledge that we have feedback, from various points
in this process so far, from several communities and in several areas of
the wikis, including Meta. We understand that some people believe that we
don’t need this project. Our shared vision is for every single human being
to freely share in the sum of all knowledge -- and that means billions of
people. There are many people and cultures we still need to reach and
include. We will need a strong well known brand to achieve the goals the
movement has set for itself and we have a lot of work to do to get us there.

Want to learn more? Check out the project hub at brandingwikipedia.org and
the project page on Meta [5]. Participate in discussions on the project
talk page, or by joining the Brand Network [2]. Also feel free to drop us a
note at brandproj...@wikimedia.org if you have questions.

Thanks!

Essie Zar

(from the movement brand identity project team)



[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-September/093382.html

[2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediabrandnetwork/

[3] https://snohetta.com/

[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#Process

[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project

* What is a concept?
A tool making the complex more understandable.

Concepts make complex subjects more understandable. They manage to
consolidate vast amounts of facts, data and details into a singular
definition in its context. By creating concepts we allow ourselves to
acknowledge the complexity yet dare to step away from differences and look
for similarities that binds it all together.


-- 
*Essie Zar* (she/her)
Brand Manager
Wikimedia Foundation 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and