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

[Strainu]

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  a scris:
>
> 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.
>
> At the Berlin Wikimedia Summit, I was asked by Zack McCune and Heather
> Walls about the branding issue. We talked about this at length so here is a
> summary of what I expressed to them:
>
> - Outside view: I respect the work the comms/branding team has done, but
> let's remember that the recommendations are from an outside consultancy
> that focuses on only one dimension of this issue. Their work does not
> consider our internal community and movement dynamics as a whole. So the
> recommendation should be seen as just one data point.

That is absolutely true.That's why I suggested that the proposal be
considered in the context of the strategic discussion.

>
> - Unproven causality: While it's true that familiarity of the "Wikimedia"
> brand is low, the case has not been made that unifying our identity under
> "Wikipedia" is a solution for the particular markets in question. There are
> many other factors regarding adoption and recognition of any brand, not
> just Wikimedia, including the commercial context of mobile/Internet users
> and default consumer entry points to the information landscape (ie. search
> engine settings, starting home page, financial incentives and
> partnerships). Other factors are: first mover advantages (e.g. Korea, with
> Naver.com's dominance over Wikipedia), or government regulation (e.g.
> China, Turkey censorship) that affect any brand footprint. Remaking our
> whole identity for the possibility that we *might* get better recognition
> in certain markets needs much more careful study.
>
> - That was then, this is now: If this was 10 years ago, I would
> enthusiastically embrace the idea of putting everything under the Wikipedia
> umbrella. In 2003, before the WMF had staff and resources, I was one of the
> primary volunteer contacts for almost all press inquiries about Wikipedia.
> I know the headaches of having to explain what "Wikimedia" is to
> journalists and the public. The book I wrote in 2009 was titled "The
> Wikipedia Revolution" for name recognition, even though I knew "Wikimedia"
> would be more accurate. But that was then. We are a whole lot more than
> Wikipedia today.

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 language versions of other projects than Wikipedia were
created relatively regularly and many people who started with
Wikipedia moved on to maintain and develop other projects. Today the
Foundation has all but given up on all other projects except the 3 you
mention below (and, to some extent, Wikisource), Google is taking data
from Wikipedia (but prefers other dictionaries instead of Wikt) and
people barely hide a polite yawn when you talk about the other
projects.

>
> - We stand on three legs (and more): If there was ever a time that
> Wikimedia was more than Wikipedia, it is now. The trio of Wikipedia,
> Commons and Wikidata is the bedrock of open knowledge sharing in a way that
> was not true even 3 years ago.

While that is true, the monolingual nature of the last 2 has left all
but the most determined outside this revolution. While not directly
relevant for the branding issue, it partially explains why people know
about Wikipedia more: it's in their language!

> Wikimedia Commons is a community of its own
> with users of its content who never touch Wikipedia. See the many news
> outlets and publications that use now use CC licensed Commons images to use
> as visuals for their stories and products. Wikidata has quickly emerged as
> the de facto way for libraries, archives and museums to connect their
> metadata to each other. They are adopting it as their global crosswalk
> database that has been proven to be more scalable and highly available than
> anything in the information landscape. Wikidata is now regularly
> incorporated into conferences outside of our own Wikimedia community, and
> has the largest museum and library groups (Europeana, AAC, OCLC, IFLA-WLIC,
> et al) working with it.

Specialization has clear advantages, but again, is not helping with
branding towards the general public and that is our target, not GLAM
or photographers.

>
> Many times, I've had librarians and curators tell me the equivalent of: "I
> never engaged with Wikipedia, because 

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

[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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[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 with non-WMF-wikis.
> ___
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

[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: 
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

[James Salsman]

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 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 takes its name?
> As a wikimedian, I think that Wikimedia is just a lot more than Wikipedia, 
> and that the similarity of the names already establishes a link between the 
> two.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Natacha / Nattes à chat
>
>
> > Le 10 avr. 2019 à 21:05, Andrew Lih  a écrit :
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > At the Berlin Wikimedia Summit, I was asked by Zack McCune and Heather
> > Walls about the branding issue. We talked about this at length so here is a
> > summary of what I expressed to them:
> >
> > - Outside view: I respect the work the comms/branding team has done, but
> > let's remember that the recommendations are from an outside consultancy
> > that focuses on only one dimension of this issue. Their work does not
> > consider our internal community and movement dynamics as a whole. So the
> > recommendation should be seen as just one data point.
> >
> > - Unproven causality: While it's true that familiarity of the "Wikimedia"
> > brand is low, the case has not been made that unifying our identity under
> > "Wikipedia" is a solution for the particular markets in question. There are
> > many other factors regarding adoption and recognition of any brand, not
> > just Wikimedia, including the commercial context of mobile/Internet users
> > and default consumer entry points to the information landscape (ie. search
> > engine settings, starting home page, financial incentives and
> > partnerships). Other factors are: first mover advantages (e.g. Korea, with
> > Naver.com's dominance over Wikipedia), or government regulation (e.g.
> > China, Turkey censorship) that affect any brand footprint. Remaking our
> > whole identity for the possibility that we *might* get better recognition
> > in certain markets needs much more careful study.
> >
> > - That was then, this is now: If this was 10 years ago, I would
> > enthusiastically embrace the idea of putting everything under the Wikipedia
> > umbrella. In 2003, before the WMF had staff and resources, I was one of the
> > primary volunteer contacts for almost all press inquiries about Wikipedia.
> > I know the headaches of having to explain what "Wikimedia" is to
> > journalists and the public. The book I wrote in 2009 was titled "The
> > Wikipedia Revolution" for name recognition, even though I knew "Wikimedia"
> > would be more accurate. But that was then. We are a whole lot more than
> > Wikipedia today.
> >
> > - We stand on three legs (and more): If there was ever a time that
> > Wikimedia was more than Wikipedia, it is now. The trio of Wikipedia,
> > Commons and Wikidata is the bedrock of open knowledge sharing in a way that
> > was not true even 3 years ago. Wikimedia Commons is a community of its own
> > with users of its content who never touch Wikipedia. See the many news
> > outlets and publications that use now use CC licensed Commons images to use
> > as visuals for their stories and products. Wikidata has quickly emerged as
> > the de facto way for libraries, archives and museums to connect their
> > metadata to each other. They are adopting it as their global crosswalk
> > database that has been proven to be more scalable and highly available than
> > anything in the information landscape. Wikidata is now regularly
> > incorporated into conferences outside of our own Wikimedia community, and
> > has the largest museum and library groups (Europeana, AAC, OCLC, IFLA-WLIC,
> > et al) working with it.
> >
> > Many times, I've had librarians and curators tell me the equivalent of: "I
> > never engaged with Wikipedia, because 'article writing' is not what we do.
> > But metadata and authority control records on Wikidata coincide with what I
> > do every day." I just had a phone call with a prominent museum collections
> > manager who said her goal was to eliminate their own local metadata
> > vocabulary in favor of using all Wikidata Q numbers instead. We are
> > reaching a new public with Commons and Wikidata that many Wikipedians, and
> > WMF employees, may not be aware of.
> >
> > - Wikipedia has a systemic bias: The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that
> > you have to know how to read. This sounds ridiculously obvious but
> > consider: in developing countries, 

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

[Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l]

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 takes its name?
As a wikimedian, I think that Wikimedia is just a lot more than Wikipedia, and 
that the similarity of the names already establishes a link between the two. 

Kind regards, 

Natacha / Nattes à chat


> Le 10 avr. 2019 à 21:05, Andrew Lih  a écrit :
> 
> 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.
> 
> At the Berlin Wikimedia Summit, I was asked by Zack McCune and Heather
> Walls about the branding issue. We talked about this at length so here is a
> summary of what I expressed to them:
> 
> - Outside view: I respect the work the comms/branding team has done, but
> let's remember that the recommendations are from an outside consultancy
> that focuses on only one dimension of this issue. Their work does not
> consider our internal community and movement dynamics as a whole. So the
> recommendation should be seen as just one data point.
> 
> - Unproven causality: While it's true that familiarity of the "Wikimedia"
> brand is low, the case has not been made that unifying our identity under
> "Wikipedia" is a solution for the particular markets in question. There are
> many other factors regarding adoption and recognition of any brand, not
> just Wikimedia, including the commercial context of mobile/Internet users
> and default consumer entry points to the information landscape (ie. search
> engine settings, starting home page, financial incentives and
> partnerships). Other factors are: first mover advantages (e.g. Korea, with
> Naver.com's dominance over Wikipedia), or government regulation (e.g.
> China, Turkey censorship) that affect any brand footprint. Remaking our
> whole identity for the possibility that we *might* get better recognition
> in certain markets needs much more careful study.
> 
> - That was then, this is now: If this was 10 years ago, I would
> enthusiastically embrace the idea of putting everything under the Wikipedia
> umbrella. In 2003, before the WMF had staff and resources, I was one of the
> primary volunteer contacts for almost all press inquiries about Wikipedia.
> I know the headaches of having to explain what "Wikimedia" is to
> journalists and the public. The book I wrote in 2009 was titled "The
> Wikipedia Revolution" for name recognition, even though I knew "Wikimedia"
> would be more accurate. But that was then. We are a whole lot more than
> Wikipedia today.
> 
> - We stand on three legs (and more): If there was ever a time that
> Wikimedia was more than Wikipedia, it is now. The trio of Wikipedia,
> Commons and Wikidata is the bedrock of open knowledge sharing in a way that
> was not true even 3 years ago. Wikimedia Commons is a community of its own
> with users of its content who never touch Wikipedia. See the many news
> outlets and publications that use now use CC licensed Commons images to use
> as visuals for their stories and products. Wikidata has quickly emerged as
> the de facto way for libraries, archives and museums to connect their
> metadata to each other. They are adopting it as their global crosswalk
> database that has been proven to be more scalable and highly available than
> anything in the information landscape. Wikidata is now regularly
> incorporated into conferences outside of our own Wikimedia community, and
> has the largest museum and library groups (Europeana, AAC, OCLC, IFLA-WLIC,
> et al) working with it.
> 
> Many times, I've had librarians and curators tell me the equivalent of: "I
> never engaged with Wikipedia, because 'article writing' is not what we do.
> But metadata and authority control records on Wikidata coincide with what I
> do every day." I just had a phone call with a prominent museum collections
> manager who said her goal was to eliminate their own local metadata
> vocabulary in favor of using all Wikidata Q numbers instead. We are
> reaching a new public with Commons and Wikidata that many Wikipedians, and
> WMF employees, may not be aware of.
> 
> - Wikipedia has a systemic bias: The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that
> you have to know how to read. This sounds ridiculously obvious but
> consider: in developing countries, we're often looking at a maximum 70%
> literacy rate. That's a big hurdle for our strategic goal of knowledge
> equity. We have yet to tap into video, multimedia, interactive and audio
> content as a major mode of knowledge sharing. What of oral histories or
> nontraditional/non-academic forms of human knowledge? The Wikipedia
> community 

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

[Andrew Lih]

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.

At the Berlin Wikimedia Summit, I was asked by Zack McCune and Heather
Walls about the branding issue. We talked about this at length so here is a
summary of what I expressed to them:

- Outside view: I respect the work the comms/branding team has done, but
let's remember that the recommendations are from an outside consultancy
that focuses on only one dimension of this issue. Their work does not
consider our internal community and movement dynamics as a whole. So the
recommendation should be seen as just one data point.

- Unproven causality: While it's true that familiarity of the "Wikimedia"
brand is low, the case has not been made that unifying our identity under
"Wikipedia" is a solution for the particular markets in question. There are
many other factors regarding adoption and recognition of any brand, not
just Wikimedia, including the commercial context of mobile/Internet users
and default consumer entry points to the information landscape (ie. search
engine settings, starting home page, financial incentives and
partnerships). Other factors are: first mover advantages (e.g. Korea, with
Naver.com's dominance over Wikipedia), or government regulation (e.g.
China, Turkey censorship) that affect any brand footprint. Remaking our
whole identity for the possibility that we *might* get better recognition
in certain markets needs much more careful study.

- That was then, this is now: If this was 10 years ago, I would
enthusiastically embrace the idea of putting everything under the Wikipedia
umbrella. In 2003, before the WMF had staff and resources, I was one of the
primary volunteer contacts for almost all press inquiries about Wikipedia.
I know the headaches of having to explain what "Wikimedia" is to
journalists and the public. The book I wrote in 2009 was titled "The
Wikipedia Revolution" for name recognition, even though I knew "Wikimedia"
would be more accurate. But that was then. We are a whole lot more than
Wikipedia today.

- We stand on three legs (and more): If there was ever a time that
Wikimedia was more than Wikipedia, it is now. The trio of Wikipedia,
Commons and Wikidata is the bedrock of open knowledge sharing in a way that
was not true even 3 years ago. Wikimedia Commons is a community of its own
with users of its content who never touch Wikipedia. See the many news
outlets and publications that use now use CC licensed Commons images to use
as visuals for their stories and products. Wikidata has quickly emerged as
the de facto way for libraries, archives and museums to connect their
metadata to each other. They are adopting it as their global crosswalk
database that has been proven to be more scalable and highly available than
anything in the information landscape. Wikidata is now regularly
incorporated into conferences outside of our own Wikimedia community, and
has the largest museum and library groups (Europeana, AAC, OCLC, IFLA-WLIC,
et al) working with it.

Many times, I've had librarians and curators tell me the equivalent of: "I
never engaged with Wikipedia, because 'article writing' is not what we do.
But metadata and authority control records on Wikidata coincide with what I
do every day." I just had a phone call with a prominent museum collections
manager who said her goal was to eliminate their own local metadata
vocabulary in favor of using all Wikidata Q numbers instead. We are
reaching a new public with Commons and Wikidata that many Wikipedians, and
WMF employees, may not be aware of.

- Wikipedia has a systemic bias: The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that
you have to know how to read. This sounds ridiculously obvious but
consider: in developing countries, we're often looking at a maximum 70%
literacy rate. That's a big hurdle for our strategic goal of knowledge
equity. We have yet to tap into video, multimedia, interactive and audio
content as a major mode of knowledge sharing. What of oral histories or
nontraditional/non-academic forms of human knowledge? The Wikipedia
community has been neglectful or outright hostile to the addition and use
of video and multimedia content in these areas. (I know this first-hand,
having headed video initiatives or having students consistently reverted
when adding multimedia.) Like it or not, there is an ingrained culture of
text-heavy articles being the dominant mode for acceptable encyclopedic
content which stands as a blocker for our evolution.

What does this have to do with the branding exercise? The internal risk is
that by promoting "Wikipedia" as not just the flagship project but the
dominant overarching identity of our work, multimedia initiatives and new
forms of knowledge will be even more suppressed within the movement and

[Wikimedia-l] The Wikimedia search engine, a thought experiment

[Gerard Meijssen]

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
this time we are considering how we can be our best in the future. One
recommendation of a marketing organisation is to rename the whole lot and
become "Wikipedia"..

Another approach is to strengthen the "Wikimedia" brand. This proposal aims
to achieve exactly that.

It has been said all too often: "sharing in the sum of all knowledge.." Our
knowledge is fractured like our projects and  in a "Wikimedia search
engine" we change our focus from article/text centred to subject centred.
This brings the result from our projects together in one display. Like
other search engines, results are presented in a tabbed display. Obviously
it will have images from Commons, data presentations from Wikidata,
articles from Wikipedias, search results from "your" Wikipedia, dictionary
content from Wiktionary books from Wikisource.. All the components we have,
it is just a matter of sticking things together. This is not hard.

In the 2030 proposals we aim to collaborate widely. So what could it mean
for libraries.. Why not have a tab where you can search *your* library and
reserve a book. Why not point to OpenLibrary as well for books available
for reading. So what could it mean for science. Obviously all the
references used in every Wikipedia are known. We know about the public data
in ORCiD and for all the scientists involved we have a Scholia. For all the
publications we have a Scholia. For all the universities we have a Scholia.
For every subject studied in academia we have a Scholia. In a next
generation of Scholia the information is localised.

The "Wikimedia search engine is not only about consuming information, it is
also a Wiki. People can sign on using their Wikimedia profile or a profile
of one of the organisations we collaborate with. In this way a scientist
may trigger an update from ORCiD and update his Scholia .. he may even
update his ORCiD data from Crossref if there are new publications.  When a
word, a concept is not known we will ask to provide us with the necessary
meta data to possibly link it to known. When a word for a subject in a
language is unknown, we ask people to link it to words for the same concept
in an other language improving search. We enable people interested in
pictures to upload their pictures in order to improve our coverage of any
and all subjects.

The best part.. We do not have to provide all of this in one go. Our
strategy aims for 2030. Having said that, I am sure that most of this can
be functioning within a few months.
Thanks,
  GerardM
___
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

[camelia boban]

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


--
*Camelia Boban*

*| Java EE Developer |*
*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation
Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030
Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*
WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
M. +39 3383385545
camelia.bo...@gmail.com
*Aissa Technologies* * | *Twitter
 *|* *LinkedIn
*
*Wikipedia  **| **WikiDonne
UG * | *WikiDonne Project*











Il giorno mer 10 apr 2019 alle ore 11:14 Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> ha scritto:

> 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 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
> a new project based entirely on videos with free content 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 Wikimedia gives us better
> opportunities to make better decisions 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: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:56 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".
> > > "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 aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about
> this
> > issue, albeit at a broader level :)
> >
> > For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is
> > looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need
> to
> > support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)
>
>
> One would hope that both that group as well as others will be informed and
> will take into account the results of the study, which confirm anecdotic
> data that almost anyone doing outreach knows.
>
> This is not a matter to be left at  the foundation's sole discretion
> (although I personally approve the proposals to various degrees).
>
> Strainu
>
> >
> > You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or
> indeed
> > the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any
> > of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their
> > current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much
> more
> > profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently
> > exist.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > (1)
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_
> > Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities#Scoping_questions
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, 

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

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

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 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 a new 
project based entirely on videos with free content 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 Wikimedia gives us better opportunities to make better 
decisions 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: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:56 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".
> > "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 aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about this
> issue, albeit at a broader level :)
>
> For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is
> looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need to
> support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)


One would hope that both that group as well as others will be informed and
will take into account the results of the study, which confirm anecdotic
data that almost anyone doing outreach knows.

This is not a matter to be left at  the foundation's sole discretion
(although I personally approve the proposals to various degrees).

Strainu

>
> You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or indeed
> the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any
> of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their
> current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much more
> profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently
> exist.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> (1)
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_
> Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities#Scoping_questions
> ___
> 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, 

___
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

[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 "user group" as a technical term in MediaWiki.
> >
>
> You may be aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about this
> issue, albeit at a broader level :)
>
> For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is
> looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need to
> support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)


One would hope that both that group as well as others will be informed and
will take into account the results of the study, which confirm anecdotic
data that almost anyone doing outreach knows.

This is not a matter to be left at  the foundation's sole discretion
(although I personally approve the proposals to various degrees).

Strainu

>
> You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or indeed
> the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any
> of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their
> current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much more
> profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently
> exist.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> (1)
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_
> Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities#Scoping_questions
> ___
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

[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 um 18:40 Uhr schrieb 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 aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about this
> issue, albeit at a broader level :)
>
> For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is
> looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need to
> support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)
>
> You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or indeed
> the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any
> of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their
> current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much more
> profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently
> exist.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> (1)
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities#Scoping_questions
> ___
> 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,