Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-19 Thread Jennifer Pryor-Summers
Gerard, I'm not advocating ignoring anyone. Decisions have to be made and they will be made by the Foundation. The best decisions will be made when they consult the community. It may be that the decision that they eventually take will be for a course of action supported by the majority, or it

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-18 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Jennifer, So you did not say it because you did not do the researce but when a minority of our community does not identify themselves as "Wikipedians" it does not matter. Sorry, but that is EXACTLY what I said. What you indicate is that a minority may be ignored. Why else do "the research" but to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-18 Thread rupert THURNER
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 7:33 PM James Heilman wrote: > With respect to popularity per Alexa: > > Wikipedia is 5th > Wikimedia is 276 (includes both Commons and Wikispecies) > Wiktionary is 432 > Wikibooks is 1,892 > Wikisource is 2,790 > Wikiquote is 3,953 > Wikidata is 8,848 > Wikiversity is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-18 Thread Jennifer Pryor-Summers
James Readership and writership -- to coin a phrase -- aren't the same thing. English-language Wikipedia may be the fifth-most visited website in the world, but it has major problems, for example, over a million un- or badly-referenced articles, as revealed in a recent WMF Research paper and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-18 Thread James Heilman
With respect to popularity per Alexa: Wikipedia is 5th Wikimedia is 276 (includes both Commons and Wikispecies) Wiktionary is 432 Wikibooks is 1,892 Wikisource is 2,790 Wikiquote is 3,953 Wikidata is 8,848 Wikiversity is 9,372 (includes Wiki Journals) Wikivoyage is 14,850 Wikinews is 60,829

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-18 Thread Jennifer Pryor-Summers
Gerard > > So it is ok to deny the minority that insists they are not? > > I didn't say that at all. I merely suggest that the reality is that the majority of volunteers take a certain view of themselves (that they are Wikpedians first and foremost ), and that the ones who take a different view

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-18 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, So it is ok to deny the minority that insists they are not? Thanks, GerardM On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 08:32, Jennifer Pryor-Summers < jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > You can't be a member of "The Wikipedia Movement". > > > > > I suggest that this claimed impossibility

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-18 Thread Peter Southwood
Good arguments, Peter -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of FT2 Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 4:54 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals I agree with both views

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-18 Thread FT2
I don't think we get to make grand claims about what "the vast majority" think, without some good basis for it. More pragmatically, I suspect that most editors think of themselves as Wikipedia/other project *editors*. But those who truly think of themselves as members of a *movement* - our GLAM

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-18 Thread Jennifer Pryor-Summers
> > > You can't be a member of "The Wikipedia Movement". > > I suggest that this claimed impossibility is in fact exactly what the vast majority of the volunteers believe that they are. JPS ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-17 Thread FT2
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 19:54, Pharos wrote: > One thing that this corporate rebranding after our most popular product > would erase is the "Wikimedia movement" - a social movement that is the > leading modern manifestation of the Free Culture movement that attracted me > as a member of Student

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-17 Thread FT2
I agree with both views expressed (the desirability of, and concerns about, the Foundation name/brand), and I suggest a solution that might work for both problems. One the one hand, Wikimedia vs Wikipedia is confusing and Wikimedia is little recognized. I'm not actually sure if that's a problem,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-16 Thread Pharos
I concur with Phoebe and others that the time for such a change was 10 or 15 years ago, and would not be appropriate or productive now. One thing that this corporate rebranding after our most popular product would erase is the "Wikimedia movement" - a social movement that is the leading modern

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-16 Thread Eduardo Testart
Hi all, I'll try to be brief. At an intuitive level I'm against implementing this particular proposal: Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia. After reading this thread and having conversations related to the subject with others this are my thoughts around it: - Timing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-16 Thread Paulo Santos Perneta
When I joined Wikimedia in 2009 I also tried WikiNews, which looked yet another fantastic Wikimedia project. I soon realized, however, that it was just a repeater of CC-BY sources of news, with very residual (if any) proper production. When an handcrafted news-piece I've made was merged with one

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-16 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Andrew Lih provided a couple of days ago a link to his excellent analysis of ten years ago, but in short - Wikinews has a very different nature that all other Wikimedia projects. Wikipedia, or say Wikivoyage or Commons are incremental - you can add a paragraph of text or an image, walk away, come

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-16 Thread Jennifer Pryor-Summers
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:49 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote: > I wouldn't describe Wikinews as a success case, though. > > Paulo > Compared to Wikitribune it is! But more importantly, if Wikinews is not thriving, then why not? Does it lack resources? What could or

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-15 Thread Risker
I concur with Phoebe and Philippe as well. I find this branding proposal feels very dated; something that might have had currency several years ago, but not really an advantage in the coming 10-15 years. There aren't a lot of organizations that change their names to reflect their most prominent

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-15 Thread Paulo Santos Perneta
I wouldn't describe Wikinews as a success case, though. Paulo Jennifer Pryor-Summers escreveu no dia segunda, 15/04/2019 à(s) 19:05: > Luiz > > > > > > If the true drivers behind this change are because WMF senior > > > management believe that the WMF is a competitor for Facebook or > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-15 Thread Jennifer Pryor-Summers
Luiz > > > If the true drivers behind this change are because WMF senior > > management believe that the WMF is a competitor for Facebook or > > YouTube (as was in one of the marketing presentations), then the > > problem is their perception of the mission of the WMF, not the name > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-15 Thread Luiz Augusto
Em dom, 14 de abr de 2019 09:54, Fæ escreveu: > (...) > If the true drivers behind this change are because WMF senior > management believe that the WMF is a competitor for Facebook or > YouTube (as was in one of the marketing presentations), then the > problem is their perception of the mission

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-15 Thread Paulo Santos Perneta
> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2019 7:10 PM > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals > > Fæ > > I don't think that the chapters are in a position to dictate to the > Foundation in the way you suggest. To take the U

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-15 Thread Peter Southwood
: Sunday, April 14, 2019 7:10 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals Fæ I don't think that the chapters are in a position to dictate to the Foundation in the way you suggest. To take the UK chapter, with you are probably most familiar

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-14 Thread Jennifer Pryor-Summers
Fæ I don't think that the chapters are in a position to dictate to the Foundation in the way you suggest. To take the UK chapter, with you are probably most familiar, last year some 42% of its income came as a block grant from the WMF, the figures for the preceding years being 54% and 47%. When

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-14 Thread Philippe Beaudette
As usual, Phoebe states very eloquently what I've been struggling to put into words myself. And like she, I would have been excited about this brand change several years ago. But we weren't ready / missed / didn't see the need for that opportunity then. I think that moment has passed. I'm not

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-14 Thread
Most Chapters and many other Affiliates are registered legal organizations. In some cases, like the one you quote, the organization is a registered charity and has several years of submitting accounts and reports as that entity. Names can be changed but this would be a legally meaningful decision

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-14 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, Yes there is a noticeable difference. Costs for changing websites, stationary and the like are not budgeted for. Given that budgets do not account for such nonsense it is not an "easy" test. It is also not a test because when the test proves negative you double the cost. Thanks, GerardM

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-14 Thread Ed Saperia
Maybe there’s an easy way to just test this? A chapter could start calling itself e.g. Wikipedia UK in its comms for a year and see if there’s any noticeable difference? Sent from my iPhone > On 14 Apr 2019, at 01:47, phoebe ayers wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rebecca O'Neill >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread phoebe ayers
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rebecca O'Neill wrote: > I agree Galder! > > I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw people > to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We have > some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Anders Wennersten
In our community (Swedish) we embrace Wikidata wholeheartedly and we have found solution to take care of vandalism. Literialist, show changes on Wikidata on Wikipedia etc. I believe it is more an attitude issue then a technical one. I agree with earlier comments that English Wikipedia is not

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
To be honest, Wikidata does have serious vandalism issues which have not yet been solved. It is unlikely the English Wikipedia will have a more close integration with Wikidata until they have been solved. For the record, I am administrator on both projects. Cheers Yaroslav On Sat, Apr 13, 2019

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, When I worked on Ottoman history in Wikidata (I will get back to it again) Catalan was one of the best resources. Thank you :) If you want me to I can share my work/your work on your wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM#Ottoman_Turkey On Sat, 13 Apr 2019

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Rebecca O'Neill
I agree Galder! I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw people to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We have some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
Well, that Wikidata problem happens on English Wikipedia. Some Wikipedias (Basque, Catalan, even French) are embracing Wikidata extensively. And there's the branding issue. Maybe Wikipedia is not THE future. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, The basic assumption of Wikipedia is the article. When we are truly to reach out and take a next step, it has to be more than Wikipedia, more than obsessing with articles. People are not looking for articles, they are looking for information on subjects. Information on subjects may be

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Nathan
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 12:42 PM phoebe ayers wrote: > > > Dear all, > I haven't weighed in before. But it seems to me there's a simple question > underlying all of this: do we actually want, or need, to increase public > awareness of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia chapters/affiliates

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread phoebe ayers
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:14 PM Zack McCune wrote: > :: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to ensure > we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as possible. :: > > Hi all, > > We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community review on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Samuel Klein
On Sat., Apr. 13, 2019, 2:27 a.m. Gerard Meijssen, < gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Wikipedia is indeed clearly the core global brand. The notion that > Wikidata will "never match Wikipedia whatever its future success" is a sad > argument. > You misunderstand me. I do not mean in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, Thank you for your well argued point of view. I followed the statistics as provided by Erik Zachte for a long time and the trend was slowly but surely where based on the statistics of Wikipedia alone English Wikipedia traffic moved slowly but surely from over fifty to under fifty percent.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread
Seeing this "brand" discussion eat up all the limited available unpaid volunteer oxygen on wikimedia-l makes me sad. If the WMF's biggest strategy topic this year is to enter into navel gazing about its brand, then the WMF looks like it has a problem with setting meaningful work for its senior

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Joseph Seddon
> We know our statistics and English Wikipedia is not 50% of our traffic. It > is where over 50% of our resources are spend. > Do we? Based on what? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, Wikipedia is indeed clearly the core global brand. The notion that Wikidata will "never match Wikipedia whatever its future success" is a sad argument. Use some hindsight and compare Wikipedia and its impact with Wikidata at the same age, do the same for Commons. It is also a useless argument

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-12 Thread Samuel Klein
Wikipedia is clearly the core global brand. It also has a prominence in the history of the Web and internetworked society that Wikidata, whatever its future success, will never match. Internally, as all have noted, the dilemma is that it is associated with the focus and policies of one project.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-12 Thread Andrew Lih
Responses below: On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:07 PM Strainu wrote: > > I would argue that, on the contrary, for the outside word we were less > Wikipedia 10 years ago. Around that time there was still hope that > Wikibooks or Wikinews could still be successful, at least in some > languages. New

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-12 Thread Paulo Santos Perneta
Have I missed something, or this discussion is nowhere to be seen at any of the Village Pumps of the Portuguese Wikipedia? Also, is there any point in discussing this onwiki, as it was in Commons by part of the community[1], if apparently there is not any following by the people in charge of this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-11 Thread Jane Darnell
ent from Wikipedia and >> Commons, that could be the best project by 2030... and we call it >> Wikivideo. Would still be a good idea to be called Wikivideo, a project by >> the Wikipedia Foundation, or would we start thinking on calling ourselves >> The Wikivideo Foundation? I think that being

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-10 Thread Strainu
ideo. Would still be a good idea to be called Wikivideo, a project by > > the Wikipedia Foundation, or would we start thinking on calling ourselves > > The Wikivideo Foundation? I think that being Wikimedia gives us better > > opportunities to make better decisions on our products than identi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-10 Thread Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
OpenWiki would be an even stranger and less known brand! ___ 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:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-10 Thread Michael Maggs
The OpenWiki Foundation? Michael > On 10 Apr 2019, at 21:51, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga > wrote: > > Thanks Andrew for the insights. I agree with most of what you have proposed. > > Actually there's a way to make everything easier: The Wiki Foundation. But it > would create new problems

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-10 Thread Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
Thanks Andrew for the insights. I agree with most of what you have proposed. Actually there's a way to make everything easier: The Wiki Foundation. But it would create new problems with non-WMF-wikis. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-10 Thread James Salsman
about our free knowledge ecosystem, that is not > >> about an Encyclopedia, is much more. So deleting the M from the equation > >> would vanish even more our sister projects. > >> > >> On the other hand, think that maybe in 2022 (for example) we could create &

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-10 Thread Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l
a Foundation, or would we start thinking on calling ourselves >> The Wikivideo Foundation? I think that being Wikimedia gives us better >> opportunities to make better decisions on our products than identifying >> totally with one of the products. >> >> And I think there

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-10 Thread Andrew Lih
e are branding issues, yes, but this are not on the name, > but on the product and the logo families. > ________________ > From: Wikimedia-l on behalf of > Strainu > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:56 AM > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-10 Thread camelia boban
ons on our products than identifying > totally with one of the products. > > And I think there are branding issues, yes, but this are not on the name, > but on the product and the logo families. > > From: Wikimedia-l on behalf of > Strainu > Sent:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-10 Thread Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
:56 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals Pe marți, 9 aprilie 2019, Chris Keating a scris: > > At the occasion, we should also reconsider the expressions "chapter" > > and "user group". > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-10 Thread Strainu
Pe marți, 9 aprilie 2019, Chris Keating a scris: > > At the occasion, we should also reconsider the expressions "chapter" > > and "user group". > > "Chapter" is more suitable for local divisions of a national > > association. And "user group" sounds just like some group. We also > > already have

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-10 Thread Ziko van Dijk
Thank you for taking the time to explain, Chris. Actually we need some kind of good terms to replace some older terms, but the challenge is that they have to fit the current situation - or, as I understand you, to introduce a change of the current situation. Kind regards Ziko Am Di., 9. Apr. 2019

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Gerard Meijssen
dia-l on behalf of > > Benjamin Ikuta > > Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 4:21 PM > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals > > > > > > > > What real life problems would there be?

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
is written on Wikipedia. From: Wikimedia-l on behalf of Chris Keating Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 6:39 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals > At the occasion, we should also reconsider th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Oscar Costero
s think > > on making our product better, because is not a brand problem, is an > > obsolescence problem what we have. > > > ____________ > > > From: Wikimedia-l on behalf > > of Gerard Meijssen > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 1

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Chris Keating
> At the occasion, we should also reconsider the expressions "chapter" > and "user group". > "Chapter" is more suitable for local divisions of a national > association. And "user group" sounds just like some group. We also > already have "user group" as a technical term in MediaWiki. > You may be

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Ziko van Dijk
of > > Benjamin Ikuta > > Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 4:21 PM > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals > > > > > > > > What real life problems would there be? > > > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Joseph Seddon
overnment that they are not > really Wikipedia Russia. > > From: Wikimedia-l on behalf of > Benjamin Ikuta > Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 4:21 PM > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals &

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
day, April 9, 2019 12:36 PM > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals > > Hoi, > The problem is that Wikipedia has an article bound interest. Our aim is to > share in the sum of all knowledge and it is about subjects. In add

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Gerard Meijssen
a brand problem, is an > obsolescence problem what we have. > > > > From: Wikimedia-l on behalf > of Gerard Meijssen > > Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 12:36 PM > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 20

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Benjamin Ikuta
gt; To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals > > Hoi, > The problem is that Wikipedia has an article bound interest. Our aim is to > share in the sum of all knowledge and it is about subjects. In addition to > this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
problem what we have. From: Wikimedia-l on behalf of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 12:36 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals Hoi, The problem is that Wikipedia has an article bound

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, The problem is that Wikipedia has an article bound interest. Our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge and it is about subjects. In addition to this the approach and `the lessons learned` in effect are used as a template on how `other` Wikipedias are to function. This bias hinder, even

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread James Salsman
Hi Elena, If by "branding project" you mean replacing references to Wikimedia with Wikipedia, that is fine with me. Best regards, Jim On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 1:58 AM Elena Lappen wrote: > > Hi all, > > Thanks to those of you who have participated in the branding project > community consultation

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Elena Lappen
Hi all, Thanks to those of you who have participated in the branding project community consultation so far. We’ve received a lot of helpful feedback via email, on-wiki, and in small meetings with affiliate group members and individual contributors. I posted this invitation to the project talk

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-03-06 Thread Strainu
Pe marți, 26 februarie 2019, Benjamin Ikuta a scris: > > > > Is it perhaps a common misconception that Wikipedia is Wikimedia, or visa > versa? My personal experience, which seems to be confirmed by this study, is that people simply have no idea what Wikimedia is. :) Selling the changes to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-03-06 Thread Benjamin Ikuta
Is it perhaps a common misconception that Wikipedia is Wikimedia, or visa versa? On Feb 25, 2019, at 7:13 PM, Zack McCune wrote: > :: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to ensure > we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as possible. :: >

[Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-02-25 Thread Zack McCune
:: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to ensure we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as possible. :: Hi all, We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community review on Wikimedia brand research and strategy. Recently, the Wikimedia