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

[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 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, because the
Foundation is only public facing in contexts where people will be fine with
that name (donations campaign, approaching 3rd parties for projects).

So do we actually have a problem? For example, do we really believe that
renaming the Foundation will actually increase donations or add to any
joint projects in a material way, or is this just that the Foundation
should have a widely recognised name but not a real problem if not?

Calling the entire foundation "The Wikipedia Foundation" enhances one (best
known) project but at the cost of marginalizing all others. Most of my work
is at Wikipedia but even so, I don't think that's a good thing at all,
other projects need a higher profile if anything, not more in Wikipedia's
shadow.  Also it narrows our focus as a project because now our entire
project name is just limited to Wikipedia, hampering our efforts to place
other projects at the "front of the stage" or make them big things. I don't
like that outcome at all.  Also it would be much harder to keep foundation
and community with their separate roles and identities, too much risk of
"blurring".  Those are real harms.

I agree a name change could have benefits, but if done, it must build on
(and "cap") all projects, not just "step into Wikipedia's shoes" only.

How about "The Wiki Knowledge Foundation"? Perhaps styled as "The
WikiKnowledge Foundation"?


   - It follows the naming pattern of * all * projects (Wikipedia,
   WikiNews, WikiCommons, WikiSource ... WikiKnowledge?)
   - It reflects the common aim of * all * projects
   - It keeps the "Wiki" part which is what has recognition beyond all, and
   is clearly distinct from "Wikipedia", but is not confusing, because it's
   clear what it means.
   - "Knowledge" is sufficiently broad that we would probably never have a
   project with that name.
   - There doesn't seem to be an active website with "wikiknowledge", so
   perhaps there's no risk of complaint is the name is used.  As a domain, "
   wikiknowledge-foundation.org" seems to be OK.


If that doesn't work , there are countless variants that might work - wiki
learning foundation, wiki information foundation, wiki projects foundation
for example.

FT2


On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 19:54, Pharos  wrote:

> 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 manifestation of the Free Culture movement that attracted me
> as a member of Student For Free Culture a decade ago.  Rebranding ourselves
> after a mere product is in some ways an erasure of the underlying social
> movement.  When one is part of the "Wikipedia movement", one is just a user
> of a specific website, and it sounds as empty as the "Facebook movement".
>
> That said, I do agree with common-sense changes like WikiCommons and
> perhaps others.  But I don't think that just because we have more money
> now, and maybe it would have been a good idea 10 years ago, that corporate
> rebranding around our most popular product is a good thing to do at this
> stage in the evolution of our movement.
>
> Thanks,
> Pharos
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:01 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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 of those automatic repeaters, I left that project and never looked
> > back. As far as I now it never was attractive, it never managed to
> > congregate any proper community worth of that name (at least the
> Portuguese
> > version) - It was kind of a failed project already 10 years ago. And that
> > was one of the reasons and motivations for Jimbo trying to reshuffle the
> > thing as his new child WikiTribune. Personally, I do not need that
> project
> > at all. When some news is notable enough (like the tragic Notre-Dame fire
> > yesterday) I create the article for it and build it as an encyclopedic
> > article, which is much more motivating and permanent than whatever is
> made
> > in WikiNews.
> >
> > Per

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

[Peter Southwood]

Our brand is already on it in these cases, and yes it would be sending a 
message - "We want you to risk your time and effort on our projects but we may 
later decide to discard everything you worked for"
Cheers,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Jennifer Pryor-Summers
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 8:19 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system 
for our 2030 goals]

Peter

Putting your brand on a project that is visibly failing also sends out a
message, to the world at large.  Is that a message you want to broadcast?

JPS

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 3:32 PM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Abandoning a project and shutting it down sends a message to all
> volunteers that their work could be similarly abandoned and lost one day.
> Is that a message we want to broadcast?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Ziko van Dijk
> Sent: 17 April 2019 00:46
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand
> system for our 2030 goals]
>
> Hello,
> Some years ago, some volunteers have proposed a new Wikimedia wiki. It did
> not turn out as expected. That‘s okay, the movement should try out thing
> from time to time.
> But this wiki should not be seen as an eternal obligation to be kept.
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
> Samuel Klein  schrieb am Di. 16. Apr. 2019 um 23:56:
>
> > Jennifer -- as you say, there is a contradiction here in the self-image
> and
> > internal narrative of the projects and movement.  A classic branding
> issue
> > ;)
> > * On the one hand, we lack clear, consistent language to talk about
> topical
> > subprojects (what do you call 'the Current Events specialists on the
> major
> > language Wikpiedias'?  some obvious names have already been taken)
> > * On the other, for the few Names that we assign to Projects, we
> > overspecify what they mean ('Wikinews is original news reporting or
> > synthesis, done on a wikinews.org site').
> >
> > We propagate this confusion of identity to those outside the projects
> > trying to understand them; which in turn leads to misunderstanding in the
> > world at large, and fewer potential collaborators joining the projects:
> >  I was recently at a gathering of international fact-checkers.   They
> > all prized Wikipedia as a model for what rapid collective editing can
> > accomplish; assumed wikinews and wikitribune were the best efforts to
> date
> > of applying that to current events; and began an enthusiastic discussion
> > about how to do it better.  When I pointed out that Wikipedias did
> exactly
> > what they were discussing, for the most popular news, this was startling
> > and satisfying to them.  However as there is no central cafe or village
> > pump for current events editors, and what portals do exist are impossible
> > to find for all but the most persistent, it is not obvious how to engage
> > with them...
> >
> > This is a challenge of naming + identity that really holds us back: ways
> > for people to form groups, projects, message streams; and channel,
> > advertise, amplify, polish them; use them for flash projects and
> > coalescence, for awareness and thanks.  We have tried many small steps in
> > this direction but have never made groups or hashtags work as simple,
> > functional tools of alignment.
> >
> > SJ
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:23 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Andrew
> > >
> > > It seems to me that you're saying that, on the one hand, the policies
> > that
> > > make Wikipedia work well as an encyclopaedia (NOR, RS, V, NORUSH) are a
> > > poor fit for a news-gathering operation and on the other hand,
> Wikipedia
> > is
> > > a success as a news-gathering operation.  These seem inconsistent to
> me.
> > > However, I conclude from what you're saying that the best way forward
> is
> > to
> > > fold the Wikinews operation into Wikipedia.  Is that right?
> > >
> > > JPS
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language)
> Wikipedia
> > > > seems
> > > > > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with
> > its
> > > > > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF
> > should
> > > > > sort out the demarcation issues.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jennifer,
> > > >
> > > > This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the
> vast
> > > > majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that
> Wikinews
> > > > hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental
> > properties.
> >

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

[Peter Southwood]

The difference here being that it is not a professional system. If you mess 
with the crowd the crowd does not generally go where you prefer it to, it goes 
home.
Other potential contributors see what has been done, and decide not to waste 
their efforts where outsiders can throw their work away. (outsiders meaning 
people not from the project that is being closed).
Preserving as read only in another place is far more acceptable and indicates 
respect for one's efforts, even when times have changed. Internal deletion, 
change and general editing is a completely different issue. It is a given when 
you start. It is implied by CC-by-sa licence.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Andy Mabbett
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 6:50 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system 
for our 2030 goals]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 15:31, Peter Southwood
 wrote:

> Abandoning a project and shutting it down sends a message to all volunteers
> that their work could be similarly abandoned and lost one day.

For some value of "lost" - it's likely, in this case, that all the
content would be preserved, either by making the wiki read-only, or
perhaps migrating articles to, say, Wikisource.

Sure, things like some portal pages, templates and categories might be
discarded, but that can happen to the work of any of us, on any
project, anyway.

We have a related, but different, issue at Wikispecies .Technically at
least, that project is now (or could soon be, with a few tweaks)
wholly redundant to Wikidata, and could be populated using
Listeria-like scripts or templates, from what is held in Wikidata.

The Wikispecies community vehemently resist this, and respond with
suggestions that data in Wikispecies (held in a variety of templates,
as well as much unstructured prose) should be what is edited, and
should be used in a reverse of the above process to somehow magically
populate Wikidata.

So we continue to maintain versions of the same data on two (or more:
Wikipedias and Commons also do their own things with biological
taxonomy) vastly different projects, diluting the impact of all of our
volunteer-hours. Anyone who commissioned a system like this in a
professional capacity would be sacked for incompetence.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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

[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 is in fact exactly what the vast
> majority of the volunteers believe that they are.
>
> JPS
> ___
> 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] Wikimedia Summit 2019: Report available on Meta

[Cornelius Kibelka]

Dear Wikimedians,

As you may have noticed, almost three weeks ago, the Wikimedia Summit 2019 (
w.wiki/38b) took place in Berlin.

Over three days, representatives from Wikimedia affiliates, the Wikimedia
Foundation, and three Wikimedia committees came together with members of
nine movement strategy working groups to discuss how to build the future of
the Wikimedia movement and ensure access to more knowledge for more people.

As for the last Wikimedia Conferences, we have published an in-depth report
documenting on what happened over the three days. The report is now
available on Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Summit_2019/Documentation
(or via the short url w.wiki/38c)

The report describes in depth what participants done over the three days:
Looking back on what the Working Groups have done over the last months,
checking-in on the Strategy Process, feedbacking and enriching the scoping
documents – and planning what needs to happen until Wikimania.

If you have any questions regarding the Summit or the report, please let me
know.

Best regards

Cornelius
Program Coordinator for the Wikimedia Summit
-- 
Cornelius Kibelka
Internationale Beziehungen | International Relations
Vorstandsteam | Office of the ED

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
http://wikimedia.de

Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
http://spenden.wikimedia.de/

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207
___
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] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[Vi to]

Wait, wait. The risk to shut down to get enough consensus to shut down a
project with an active community which is not systematically violating any
fundamental principle is zero.

Vito

Il giorno gio 18 apr 2019 alle ore 10:45 Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> ha scritto:

> The difference here being that it is not a professional system. If you
> mess with the crowd the crowd does not generally go where you prefer it to,
> it goes home.
> Other potential contributors see what has been done, and decide not to
> waste their efforts where outsiders can throw their work away. (outsiders
> meaning people not from the project that is being closed).
> Preserving as read only in another place is far more acceptable and
> indicates respect for one's efforts, even when times have changed. Internal
> deletion, change and general editing is a completely different issue. It is
> a given when you start. It is implied by CC-by-sa licence.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Andy Mabbett
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 6:50 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand
> system for our 2030 goals]
>
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 15:31, Peter Southwood
>  wrote:
>
> > Abandoning a project and shutting it down sends a message to all
> volunteers
> > that their work could be similarly abandoned and lost one day.
>
> For some value of "lost" - it's likely, in this case, that all the
> content would be preserved, either by making the wiki read-only, or
> perhaps migrating articles to, say, Wikisource.
>
> Sure, things like some portal pages, templates and categories might be
> discarded, but that can happen to the work of any of us, on any
> project, anyway.
>
> We have a related, but different, issue at Wikispecies .Technically at
> least, that project is now (or could soon be, with a few tweaks)
> wholly redundant to Wikidata, and could be populated using
> Listeria-like scripts or templates, from what is held in Wikidata.
>
> The Wikispecies community vehemently resist this, and respond with
> suggestions that data in Wikispecies (held in a variety of templates,
> as well as much unstructured prose) should be what is edited, and
> should be used in a reverse of the above process to somehow magically
> populate Wikidata.
>
> So we continue to maintain versions of the same data on two (or more:
> Wikipedias and Commons also do their own things with biological
> taxonomy) vastly different projects, diluting the impact of all of our
> volunteer-hours. Anyone who commissioned a system like this in a
> professional capacity would be sacked for incompetence.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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

[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 of themselves (that they are Wikmedians first and foremost) are in the
minority. That is a proposition which is capable of being tested: I have
not done that test.  If it were to turn out to be true, as I sugest it is,
that would not be to "deny the minority", it would simply be to state that
the minority turns out as a matter of fact to be a minority.

JPS
___
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] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Peter

Our brand is already on it in these cases, and yes it would be sending a
> message - "We want you to risk your time and effort on our projects but we
> may later decide to discard everything you worked for"
>

I don;t think "discard" is right.  The message would be "... but if it
doesn't work out then we won't continue to waste your time and effort and
our donations indefinitely". That's realistic.

JPS
___
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 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

There are 644 million websites. That means all our sites are doing fairly
well relatively. Wiki Journals are hoping to split off to become their own
sister site. The Wiki Journals accept primary research and than subject it
to peer review. Might make sense to merge Wikinews into such a site. Of
course would require consensus.

James

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:16 AM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 of themselves (that they are Wikmedians first and foremost) are in the
> minority. That is a proposition which is capable of being tested: I have
> not done that test.  If it were to turn out to be true, as I sugest it is,
> that would not be to "deny the minority", it would simply be to state that
> the minority turns out as a matter of fact to be a minority.
>
> JPS
> ___
> 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,
> 



-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
___
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

[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
blogpost.  English-language Wikinews may be at 60,829 (and so doing a lot
better than Wikitribune at 435,723) but it's still the case that its three
latest news stories are 2, 7 and 10 days old.  This is not the picture of
sites "doing fairly well".

JPS

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 6:33 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 9,372 (includes Wiki Journals)
> Wikivoyage is 14,850
> Wikinews is 60,829
>
> There are 644 million websites. That means all our sites are doing fairly
> well relatively. Wiki Journals are hoping to split off to become their own
> sister site. The Wiki Journals accept primary research and than subject it
> to peer review. Might make sense to merge Wikinews into such a site. Of
> course would require consensus.
>
> James
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:16 AM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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 of themselves (that they are Wikmedians first and foremost) are in
> the
> > minority. That is a proposition which is capable of being tested: I have
> > not done that test.  If it were to turn out to be true, as I sugest it
> is,
> > that would not be to "deny the minority", it would simply be to state
> that
> > the minority turns out as a matter of fact to be a minority.
> >
> > JPS
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> ___
> 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

[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 9,372 (includes Wiki Journals)
> Wikivoyage is 14,850
> Wikinews is 60,829
>
> There are 644 million websites. That means all our sites are doing fairly
> well relatively. Wiki Journals are hoping to split off to become their own
> sister site. The Wiki Journals accept primary research and than subject it
> to peer review. Might make sense to merge Wikinews into such a site. Of
> course would require consensus.
>

hey what brilliant idea! i'd support merging wikinews into a something like
wikijournal. besides the more traditional ways like preprint server or
mail, i'd find it especially charming if one option of peer review is the
wiki-way, via "tag the quality and the type", maybe even allow different
groups to set such tags. and not (only) the wikinews way, or, ironically,
the nupedia way, where an editor decides "publish or not", and articles get
stuck into a "preprint", "private", "sandbox" namespace. is this something
which you think might work?

rupert
___
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

[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
provide grounds to change "the brand" anyway?

As to problems with projects, Wikipedia has its problems with citations as
you indicate in another mail. At Wikidata a whole lot of effort is ongoing
to include items for sources used for citations in all the Wikipedias. At
the same time there is new functionality to find/focus on those instances
where citations are lacking using AI. At some stage these two developments
will meet. We know about other issues in Wikipedias and as you may know,
Wikipedians are stubborn, uncooperative and reject what others have to
offer.

To put it bluntly, the majority smothers the minority, prevents others from
bringing new developments to a state where it obviously improves on the
old. Past experience shows there will always be a vocal group from the
majority preventing change.

Wikipedia as a brand will prove destructive.
Thanks,
  GerardM



On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 18:16, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 of themselves (that they are Wikmedians first and foremost) are in the
> minority. That is a proposition which is capable of being tested: I have
> not done that test.  If it were to turn out to be true, as I sugest it is,
> that would not be to "deny the minority", it would simply be to state that
> the minority turns out as a matter of fact to be a minority.
>
> JPS
> ___
> 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] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
"your time and effort" is for those other people to waste. It is for them
to decide what value they derive from spending it in this way. "our
donations", donations is what donors offer. Once they have donated, it
becomes the money of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is not our donations, it
is not even our money.

Then consider the cost, to the Wikimedia Foundation. It is largely the cost
of serving the content, the management of the servers. In the big picture
it is not much, it is also very much a question on the inclusivity of the
Wikimedia Foundation that enables the continued existence of these
projects. With a Wikipedia community as a movement we will be excluding
others as we expel volunteers who are considered redundant because they do
not fit our image.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 18:20, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Peter
>
> Our brand is already on it in these cases, and yes it would be sending a
> > message - "We want you to risk your time and effort on our projects but
> we
> > may later decide to discard everything you worked for"
> >
>
> I don;t think "discard" is right.  The message would be "... but if it
> doesn't work out then we won't continue to waste your time and effort and
> our donations indefinitely". That's realistic.
>
> JPS
> ___
> 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

[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 may be
for a course of action supported by a minority.  In neither case are they
being ignored.

You, like the rest of us, have the opportunity to present facts and
arguments to the WMF in support of the decision you favour.

JPS

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 5:56 AM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> 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
> provide grounds to change "the brand" anyway?
>
> As to problems with projects, Wikipedia has its problems with citations as
> you indicate in another mail. At Wikidata a whole lot of effort is ongoing
> to include items for sources used for citations in all the Wikipedias. At
> the same time there is new functionality to find/focus on those instances
> where citations are lacking using AI. At some stage these two developments
> will meet. We know about other issues in Wikipedias and as you may know,
> Wikipedians are stubborn, uncooperative and reject what others have to
> offer.
>
> To put it bluntly, the majority smothers the minority, prevents others from
> bringing new developments to a state where it obviously improves on the
> old. Past experience shows there will always be a vocal group from the
> majority preventing change.
>
> Wikipedia as a brand will prove destructive.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
>
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 18:16, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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 of themselves (that they are Wikmedians first and foremost) are in
> the
> > minority. That is a proposition which is capable of being tested: I have
> > not done that test.  If it were to turn out to be true, as I sugest it
> is,
> > that would not be to "deny the minority", it would simply be to state
> that
> > the minority turns out as a matter of fact to be a minority.
> >
> > JPS
> > ___
> > 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] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Gerard,

Not everything works out -- that's the way of the world.  Your argument
would imply that no project that had ever attracted anyone's time and
effort could ever be discontinued.  That is unsustainable.  The WMF has
limited resources and quite properly has to decide on priorities for
allocating its resources.  It also has to consider the non-monetary cost --
for example, damage to the reputation of the Foundation, of the movement it
leads, and the other projects it owns -- of continuing to support a project
that is clearly a failure.

JPS.

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 7:18 AM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> "your time and effort" is for those other people to waste. It is for them
> to decide what value they derive from spending it in this way. "our
> donations", donations is what donors offer. Once they have donated, it
> becomes the money of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is not our donations, it
> is not even our money.
>
> Then consider the cost, to the Wikimedia Foundation. It is largely the cost
> of serving the content, the management of the servers. In the big picture
> it is not much, it is also very much a question on the inclusivity of the
> Wikimedia Foundation that enables the continued existence of these
> projects. With a Wikipedia community as a movement we will be excluding
> others as we expel volunteers who are considered redundant because they do
> not fit our image.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 18:20, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Peter
> >
> > Our brand is already on it in these cases, and yes it would be sending a
> > > message - "We want you to risk your time and effort on our projects but
> > we
> > > may later decide to discard everything you worked for"
> > >
> >
> > I don;t think "discard" is right.  The message would be "... but if it
> > doesn't work out then we won't continue to waste your time and effort and
> > our donations indefinitely". That's realistic.
> >
> > JPS
> > ___
> > 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,