Andrew,
While I appreciate your huge knowledge of English Wikipedia, this
whole email - being so en.wp centric - sounds like an argument for
simplification and for "going with the majority". Here is how I see
it, as a member of a much smaller community.
În mie., 10 apr. 2019 la 22:05, Andrew Lih
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:
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
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:
Is there a middle ground that would satisfy all the objections? E.g.,
"Wikipedias and media" as a brand identifier?
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:25 PM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l
wrote:
>
> Thank Andrew for summing up all the issues around this rebranding issue. I
> really dont believe it
Thank Andrew for summing up all the issues around this rebranding issue. I
really dont believe it should be done.
I can’t see that this could be done without community consultation. I doubt
all versions of wikipedia could agree in a unanimous move.
How would Wikipedia be named if wikimedia
I agree with Galder's and Camelia's thoughts and believe we should slow
down to think about this issue as a whole. We cannot, and should not,
consider this purely a "branding" exercise because the internal and
external risks go well beyond this. We need to carefully take them into
consideration.
Hoi,
Our projects, our organisation is fractured. In the perception of many we
are Wikipedia but in actuality there is no Wikipedia, there are over 180
Wikipedias. There are projects other than Wikipedia but for all kinds of
reasons they are not known, as a brand they have little recognition. At
Absolutely agree with Galder.
WikiMedia is not only Wikipedia. Is not just an encyclopedia, but all other
wiki projects.
And is also a movement for openness, a philosophy, a way to do things.
Means collaborations, partners, a lot of other staffs than an encyclopedia
doesn't include.
Camelia
--
I also think that there are some branding issues, but let me focus just in the
opposite way: Wikimedia is not a bug, is a feature. When you say you represent
WikiMedia, then someone asks about why an M ad not a P and gives you the
opportunity to talk about our free knowledge ecosystem, that is
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
