On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:41 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 July 2011 20:07, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, I think debating the name is a bit cart before horse -
the idea is that these organizations seem to share common ideals, and
could cooperative in mutually
If I didn't have a heart I would have gone into advertising, specifically
for branding. The topic is a long time interest of mine, so here's my
amateur opinion with education on the branding world.
The success of a brand depends on synching an idea/product with one name.
At this point in time,
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Keegan Peterzell
keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
In reply overall-- I definitely agree that Wikipedia is, by far, our
strongest brand-- and a very different brand than the one that would
be served by a wider unnamed movement.
I haven't been anywhere near as
On 16/07/11 13:19, Alec Conroy wrote:
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Keegan Peterzell
keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
In reply overall-- I definitely agree that Wikipedia is, by far, our
strongest brand-- and a very different brand than the one that would
be served by a wider unnamed
On 15 July 2011 01:03, Alec Conroy alecmcon...@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed. They're a very very special tool, but software not a
reasonable definition for a movement. The Unnamed Movement should be
software-neutral, if not in name then CERTAINLY in practice.
It's a thing and it exists and
On 14 July 2011 23:33, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I can envision something like an Open Knowledge Project or some other
umbrella initiative, aimed at forging links between like-minded
organizations who wish to associate without losing independence or
explicitly taking responsibility for
I think this is a good idea (and better than trying to get all Free
Content/Open Knowledge/etc. people to badge themselves as somehow part
of our Wikimedia Movement, which though (hopefully!) welcoming and
inclusive is not as wide as the whole topic.
I'd note that there is of course the
I agree something like Open Knowledge Project would be a more suitable
term. Do they have any decals like those of Health on the Net that people
could add to their websites? Should there be different degree of
inclusiveness depending on non commercial or commercial reuse? I see this as
the first
- Original Message
From: James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Fri, July 15, 2011 10:39:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for
self-identified affiliation
I agree something like Open Knowledge Project would
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
- Original Message
From: James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Fri, July 15, 2011 10:39:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for
self
On 15 July 2011 20:07, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, I think debating the name is a bit cart before horse -
the idea is that these organizations seem to share common ideals, and
could cooperative in mutually beneficial ways with some sort of formal
vehicle.
I don't entirely agree.
- Original Message
From: Nathan nawr...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Fri, July 15, 2011 2:07:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for
self-identified affiliation
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011
So happy to see all the helpful responses!
So, it seems like I only have two mode of communication: Verbose and
clear or Brief but confusing. My email starting this thread was
brief, let's try the other style.
Executive Summary:
The Wikimedia Movement is a really big deal that is exploding
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hello,
If I understand Alec right he wants a model wherein a project like
WikiSomething can declare itself affiliated with Wikimedia:
We need a name for self-identified project affiliation. External
projects needs
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 20:41, Pharos pharosofalexand...@gmail.com wrote:
Informally, and in my own mind, I tend to think of like-minded free
culture wiki sites as part of a broader Wiki Knowledge movement.
Of course,
One easy step they could take would be to simply say, on their
website, This site considers itself to be part of the Wikimedia
Movement. (alternate text welcome )
That would be a trademark violation. We should protect our trademarks.
We don't want them associated with just any project.
This is indeed one of the greatest suggestion I have heard in a long
time. Having people add Part of the Wikimedia Movement would benefit
both parties. All of us here I think support free knowledge wherever
it is found. Allowing our GLAM partners to use this wording and those
who are actively
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 8:17 AM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
This is indeed one of the greatest suggestion I have heard in a long
time. Having people add Part of the Wikimedia Movement would benefit
both parties. All of us here I think support free knowledge wherever
it is found.
On 14 July 2011 15:32, Alec Conroy alecmcon...@gmail.com wrote:
One easy step they could take would be to simply say, on their
website, This site considers itself to be part of the Wikimedia
Movement. (alternate text welcome )
That would be a trademark violation. We should protect our
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
I dislike the idea of making it ultra-accessible for basically anyone to
stick Part of the Wikimedia Movement on their website - it serves little
purpose (per se) and you are going to get the vast majority of
Good :) I'm glad I am reading your ideas right.
As for the name-- this looks like a job for experts.
Perhaps - though with that said when I am programming it is often my
only-slightly-technically minded work colleages who come up with ideas for
the most effective solution.
We could
Wow. That was a long read. Some very interesting points, I hope you will
forgive me if I ignore most.
I do want to stress a few things. There is a difference between the Free
Content Movement, the Group of People who Use Wiki's and the Wikimedia
Movement. Within the Free Content Movement, which
I can envision something like an Open Knowledge Project or some other
umbrella initiative, aimed at forging links between like-minded
organizations who wish to associate without losing independence or
explicitly taking responsibility for the work of others. It could be
set up pretty simply:
*
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
As for the name-- this looks like a job for experts.
Perhaps - though with that said when I am programming it is often my
only-slightly-technically minded work colleages who come up with ideas for
the
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:56 PM, effe iets anders
effeietsand...@gmail.com wrote:
Wow. That was a long read. Some very interesting points, I hope you will
forgive me if I ignore most.
I'm so happy anyone found it worth reading! It's quite tome-ish .
I do want to stress a few things. There is
I am not sure if this is about the same thing. I read Alec's questions as
being about content projects that want to affiliate themselves with
Wikimedia - want to become the new Wikimedia project. I know that in the
past this question has lived for example with OmegaWiki/WiktionaryZ . SJ,
would you
Hello,
If I understand Alec right he wants a model wherein a project like
WikiSomething can declare itself affiliated with Wikimedia:
We need a name for self-identified project affiliation. External
projects needs to be able to claim, on their own initiative, that they
are part of something.
Of
I had the same interpretation as Ziko. Affiliate sites, in Alec's
language, want to indicate they share Wikimedian ideals.
Few such sites would want to become a Wikimedia-hosted project.
SJ
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hello,
If I understand
Informally, and in my own mind, I tend to think of like-minded free
culture wiki sites as part of a broader Wiki Knowledge movement.
Of course, this is not meant to be an exclusivist or trademarked term :P
Thanks,
Richard
(User:Pharos)
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Samuel Klein
I'm open to negotiations, on behalf of Wikinfo, for the friendliest
possible cooperative relationship. However, the more relaxed editing
atmosphere, the exclusion of nasty editing behavior, and exploration of
alternate points of view are not negotiable.
Fred Bauder
I had the same interpretation
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 20:41, Pharos pharosofalexand...@gmail.com wrote:
Informally, and in my own mind, I tend to think of like-minded free
culture wiki sites as part of a broader Wiki Knowledge movement.
Of course, this is not meant to be an exclusivist or trademarked term :P
Wiki is just
On 13 July 2011 01:32, Alec Conroy alecmcon...@gmail.com wrote:
Prompted by discussions in another thread, I ask a related question--
;1-- A roadmap towards affiliation
How should a currently-unaffiliated project go about becoming 'part
of' Wikimedia?
One easy step they could take would
I have been working on collaborations with a couple of groups including
ECGPedia (http://en.ecgpedia.org/) and TRIP Database (
http://www.tripdatabase.com/). Both are fairly well known sites and share
our values. They are both interested in working with us in some manner. Is
this something I could
Prompted by discussions in another thread, I ask a related question--
;1-- A roadmap towards affiliation
How should a currently-unaffiliated project go about becoming 'part
of' Wikimedia?
One easy step they could take would be to simply say, on their
website, This site considers itself to be
We're discussing setting up an Affiliation committee to oversee
simple, low-overhead wikimedia affiliates and associations. These
could be organizations 'under the umbrella' of free knowledge --
requiring just basic review of their work and standards to confirm
they are in line with our basic
35 matches
Mail list logo
