[Wikimedia-l] WCNA 2019: Nov 8-11 in Boston / Submissions + Scholarships open!

[Kevin Payravi]

 Hello,

For those interested, WikiConference North America 2019 will be taking
place in Boston, Massachusetts on Friday, November 8 through Monday,
November 11!

https://wikiconference.org/wiki/2019/Main_Page

Plans are under way for our annual Culture Crawl, hackathon and programming
days. We're also teaming up with and are thrilled to have the support of
the Credibility Coalition to put on a great event with reliability as a
central theme.

Session proposals are open: We are pleased to announce that we are
accepting submissions for WCNA lectures, panels, workshops, etc. Visit our
submissions page on the conference wiki to learn more and start your
submission. Submissions are due by September 20th (or September 27th for
academic proposals).

https://wikiconference.org/wiki/2019/Submissions

Scholarship applications are also open: You can apply for a scholarship
through September 20th. Everything you need to know about the scholarship
-the criteria, application timeline, evaluation process, a FAQ section, as
well as a link to the application form- are available on our scholarship
page.

https://wikiconference.org/wiki/2019/Scholarships

If you'd like to stay tuned on social media, you can follow us on Facebook
or Twitter.
https://www.facebook.com/wikiconferencena/
https://twitter.com/WikiConNA

On behalf of WikiConference North America,
Kevin Payravi
SuperHamster on-wiki
___
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] Community feedback and next steps on movement brand proposal

[Yaroslav Blanter]

I agree with Fae. I strongly oppose the proposal, and I somehow used to
assume that our opinion would be asked in a structured way.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:03 PM Fæ  wrote:

> If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from all
> the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond with
> a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?
>
> Something along the lines of:
> "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and they
> recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word "Wikipedia"
> and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons" to
> ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the WMF.
> Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?"
>
> With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every discussion
> on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether "There
> is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There is
> considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual. Rather
> than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness that
> comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without
> firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and less
> credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from embedded
> bias, especially considering the already banked investment in
> consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove the
> spent money had impact and "value".
>
> P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word "collaboration" when
> communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate history
> and gives the impression that you are quoting views from collaborators
> rather than holding open collegial discussion.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I agree with Pine.
> > There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding
> > proposition.
> > I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except that it
> is
> > difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but it is
> > sometimes necessary).
> > Have other options even been considered?
> >
> > -speaking in my own name here-
> >
> > Diane
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Zack,
> > >
> > > Thank you for the report on Meta.
> > >
> > > I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is
> considerable
> > > support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our
> > > movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to omit is
> that,
> > > according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable opposition
> to
> > > the rebranding proposal.
> > >
> > >
> > > Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having
> "considerable
> > > support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what appears to be
> > > considerable opposition?
> > >
> > >
> > > Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta displays that
> > > measure community and affiliate support or opposition regarding the
> > > rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and two of
> the
> > > three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was using those
> > > measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition regarding the
> RfC,
> > > I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as declined.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > >
> > > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune  wrote:
> > >
> > > > *Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design
> process for
> > > > movement branding.  Please join the in-depth discussion group, or
> watch
> > > for
> > > > updates on Meta-Wiki.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hello all,
> > > >
> > > > After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of
> affiliates,
> > > > several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am
> pleased
> > > > to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand
> > > strategy
> > > > [1].
> > > >
> > > > From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual
> contributors and
> > > > 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
> > > >
> > > >1.
> > > >
> > > >Reducing confusion
> > > >2.
> > > >
> > > >Protecting reputation
> > > >3.
> > > >
> > > >Supporting sister projects
> > > >4.
> > > >
> > > >Addressing (legal, governmental) risks
> > > >5.
> > > >
> > > >Supporting movement growth
> > > >6.
> > > >
> > > >The process of change
> > > >
> > > > Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You will
> see
> > > > examples of comments within each section, along with a rough
> indication
> > > of
> > > > how many of the comments that we received were related to each theme.
> > > >
> > > > The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that across
> our
> > > wide
> > > > movement’s experience, different 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community feedback and next steps on movement brand proposal

[Isaac Olatunde]

We sometimes spend several minutes trying to explain to potentials partners
the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia and the relationship between
them.

In most cases we just use "Wikipedia" so as to not confuse them.

Of course some people would share an opposing view for many reasons but I
do think this rebranding is important.

Regards

Isaac

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 9:29 PM Strainu  Pe vineri, 6 septembrie 2019, Adrian Raddatz  a
> scris:
>
> > Yet another potentially good idea from the Foundation killed by the usual
> > atrocious style of stakeholder management. No benefits framed for the
> > community,
>
>
>
> >
> > no indication that this change is coming from the bottom up,
>
>
> Huh? Have you seriously never seen people asking the difference between
> Wikipedia and Wikimedia or wiki(m|p) edians complaining about how hard it
> is to explain that difference?
>
> This change is very much a bottom up one, even if it is pushed by the WMF
> using corporate procedures rather than by the community using an RfC.
>
>
>
> > no
> > assurance that this change happens or not based on the results of the
> > consultation.
>
>
> I would say that it was pretty clear the change will happen :)
>
> Strainu
>
> >
> > You can't figure out the benefits to the community - your key stakeholder
> > group - entirely as part of the consultation. You need to frame the
> > consultation as figuring out how to achieve pre-identified benefits to
> your
> > stakeholders in the optimal way. You should also try to get buy-in from
> key
> > community groups *before* you start consulting, and use them as part of
> the
> > consultation, so it stops being Foundation vs. the community and turns
> into
> > the Foundation collaboratively supporting community-led ideas.
> >
> > It pains me to see this being done poorly, time and time again.
> >
> > Adrian Raddatz
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > paulospern...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > After the last disastrous WMF intervention in Wikipedia - Framgate - I
> > > believe the timing is just perfect for the WMF to go forward with this
> > fit
> > > of creativity of branding themselves as the "Wikipedia Foundation".
> > >
> > > It's one after another, and never stops.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > > Yaroslav Blanter  escreveu no dia sexta, 6/09/2019
> > à(s)
> > > 18:25:
> > >
> > > > I agree with Fae. I strongly oppose the proposal, and I somehow used
> to
> > > > assume that our opinion would be asked in a structured way.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Yaroslav
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:03 PM Fæ  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from
> all
> > > > > the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond
> with
> > > > > a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?
> > > > >
> > > > > Something along the lines of:
> > > > > "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and they
> > > > > recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word
> "Wikipedia"
> > > > > and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons" to
> > > > > ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the
> WMF.
> > > > > Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?"
> > > > >
> > > > > With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every
> discussion
> > > > > on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether
> > "There
> > > > > is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There is
> > > > > considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual.
> Rather
> > > > > than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness that
> > > > > comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without
> > > > > firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and less
> > > > > credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from embedded
> > > > > bias, especially considering the already banked investment in
> > > > > consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove the
> > > > > spent money had impact and "value".
> > > > >
> > > > > P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word "collaboration"
> > when
> > > > > communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate
> history
> > > > > and gives the impression that you are quoting views from
> > collaborators
> > > > > rather than holding open collegial discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Fae
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville <
> > > dranville-...@wikimedia.org
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree with Pine.
> > > > > > There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding
> > > > > > proposition.
> > > > > > I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except
> > that
> > > > it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but
> > it
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community feedback and next steps on movement brand proposal

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

I think a rebranding to Wikipedia is the best branding option but, at the same 
time, I aknowledge that this can cause a wide variety of problems to so many 
people inside our community that doing it without a plan to give safety (not 
only legal, as their lives could be compromised) is a bigger danger than the 
benefits it causes.



2019 ira. 6 10:41 PM erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Isaac Olatunde 
):

We sometimes spend several minutes trying to explain to potentials partners
the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia and the relationship between
them.

In most cases we just use "Wikipedia" so as to not confuse them.

Of course some people would share an opposing view for many reasons but I
do think this rebranding is important.

Regards

Isaac

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 9:29 PM Strainu  Pe vineri, 6 septembrie 2019, Adrian Raddatz  a
> scris:
>
> > Yet another potentially good idea from the Foundation killed by the usual
> > atrocious style of stakeholder management. No benefits framed for the
> > community,
>
>
>
> >
> > no indication that this change is coming from the bottom up,
>
>
> Huh? Have you seriously never seen people asking the difference between
> Wikipedia and Wikimedia or wiki(m|p) edians complaining about how hard it
> is to explain that difference?
>
> This change is very much a bottom up one, even if it is pushed by the WMF
> using corporate procedures rather than by the community using an RfC.
>
>
>
> > no
> > assurance that this change happens or not based on the results of the
> > consultation.
>
>
> I would say that it was pretty clear the change will happen :)
>
> Strainu
>
> >
> > You can't figure out the benefits to the community - your key stakeholder
> > group - entirely as part of the consultation. You need to frame the
> > consultation as figuring out how to achieve pre-identified benefits to
> your
> > stakeholders in the optimal way. You should also try to get buy-in from
> key
> > community groups *before* you start consulting, and use them as part of
> the
> > consultation, so it stops being Foundation vs. the community and turns
> into
> > the Foundation collaboratively supporting community-led ideas.
> >
> > It pains me to see this being done poorly, time and time again.
> >
> > Adrian Raddatz
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > paulospern...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > After the last disastrous WMF intervention in Wikipedia - Framgate - I
> > > believe the timing is just perfect for the WMF to go forward with this
> > fit
> > > of creativity of branding themselves as the "Wikipedia Foundation".
> > >
> > > It's one after another, and never stops.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > > Yaroslav Blanter  escreveu no dia sexta, 6/09/2019
> > à(s)
> > > 18:25:
> > >
> > > > I agree with Fae. I strongly oppose the proposal, and I somehow used
> to
> > > > assume that our opinion would be asked in a structured way.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Yaroslav
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:03 PM Fæ  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from
> all
> > > > > the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond
> with
> > > > > a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?
> > > > >
> > > > > Something along the lines of:
> > > > > "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and they
> > > > > recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word
> "Wikipedia"
> > > > > and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons" to
> > > > > ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the
> WMF.
> > > > > Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?"
> > > > >
> > > > > With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every
> discussion
> > > > > on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether
> > "There
> > > > > is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There is
> > > > > considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual.
> Rather
> > > > > than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness that
> > > > > comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without
> > > > > firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and less
> > > > > credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from embedded
> > > > > bias, especially considering the already banked investment in
> > > > > consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove the
> > > > > spent money had impact and "value".
> > > > >
> > > > > P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word "collaboration"
> > when
> > > > > communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate
> history
> > > > > and gives the impression that you are quoting views from
> > collaborators
> > > > > rather than holding open collegial discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Fae
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville <
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community feedback and next steps on movement brand proposal

[Adrian Raddatz]

I think it's a fine idea. I know that nobody knows what "Wikimedia means",
and see value to moving at least the Foundation's name towards a more
recognizable brand.

I also see valid points being raised from the community, such as the
distinction between Wikipedia and WikiBooks, -Versity, -Source, etc. Those
projects are often very different from Wikipedia, and further work should
be done to understand the impacts on brand perception if those very
different projects use a more similar name. But overall, I think the idea
is good.

What is bad is that this is another top-down change being apparently made
entirely by WMF staff. The question is "how should we implement this idea
that we have already come up with, and will implement anyway"? The question
should have been brought forward much earlier in the form of "how can we
improve our brand awareness". This idea could have been put forward and
refined as part of that collaborative process. Or at least that's how it
should have been done if the WMF cares about being a service organization.

> I would say that it was pretty clear the change will happen :)
No need to mock me based on my apparent position on the issue. And I really
don't see how it is desirable that the Foundation is willing to push ideas
through without community support. Again, are they a top-down governance
organization, or a service organization aimed at supporting and empowering
the editing community and readership?

Adrian Raddatz


On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:05 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I think a rebranding to Wikipedia is the best branding option but, at the
> same time, I aknowledge that this can cause a wide variety of problems to
> so many people inside our community that doing it without a plan to give
> safety (not only legal, as their lives could be compromised) is a bigger
> danger than the benefits it causes.
>
>
>
> 2019 ira. 6 10:41 PM erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Isaac Olatunde <
> reachout2is...@gmail.com>):
>
> We sometimes spend several minutes trying to explain to potentials partners
> the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia and the relationship between
> them.
>
> In most cases we just use "Wikipedia" so as to not confuse them.
>
> Of course some people would share an opposing view for many reasons but I
> do think this rebranding is important.
>
> Regards
>
> Isaac
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 9:29 PM Strainu 
> > Pe vineri, 6 septembrie 2019, Adrian Raddatz  a
> > scris:
> >
> > > Yet another potentially good idea from the Foundation killed by the
> usual
> > > atrocious style of stakeholder management. No benefits framed for the
> > > community,
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > no indication that this change is coming from the bottom up,
> >
> >
> > Huh? Have you seriously never seen people asking the difference between
> > Wikipedia and Wikimedia or wiki(m|p) edians complaining about how hard it
> > is to explain that difference?
> >
> > This change is very much a bottom up one, even if it is pushed by the WMF
> > using corporate procedures rather than by the community using an RfC.
> >
> >
> >
> > > no
> > > assurance that this change happens or not based on the results of the
> > > consultation.
> >
> >
> > I would say that it was pretty clear the change will happen :)
> >
> > Strainu
> >
> > >
> > > You can't figure out the benefits to the community - your key
> stakeholder
> > > group - entirely as part of the consultation. You need to frame the
> > > consultation as figuring out how to achieve pre-identified benefits to
> > your
> > > stakeholders in the optimal way. You should also try to get buy-in from
> > key
> > > community groups *before* you start consulting, and use them as part of
> > the
> > > consultation, so it stops being Foundation vs. the community and turns
> > into
> > > the Foundation collaboratively supporting community-led ideas.
> > >
> > > It pains me to see this being done poorly, time and time again.
> > >
> > > Adrian Raddatz
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > paulospern...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > After the last disastrous WMF intervention in Wikipedia - Framgate -
> I
> > > > believe the timing is just perfect for the WMF to go forward with
> this
> > > fit
> > > > of creativity of branding themselves as the "Wikipedia Foundation".
> > > >
> > > > It's one after another, and never stops.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Paulo
> > > >
> > > > Yaroslav Blanter  escreveu no dia sexta, 6/09/2019
> > > à(s)
> > > > 18:25:
> > > >
> > > > > I agree with Fae. I strongly oppose the proposal, and I somehow
> used
> > to
> > > > > assume that our opinion would be asked in a structured way.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > Yaroslav
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:03 PM Fæ  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from
> > all
> > > > > > the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community feedback and next steps on movement brand proposal

[Kiril Simeonovski]

Hi all,

I think the problem arises from the lack of transparency about Wikimedia
Foundation's intent to hire a consulting firm for a rebranding advice. This
is a major thing that affects our entire movement and thousands of
contributors who self-identify with the brand names that we currently have.

But since they put the rebranding on the front burner and have already
spent money with no formal approval by the community, they are definitely
ready to enforce it no matter what the community opines and how strong is
the opposition built around it. The use of the ridiculous 20-per-cent
metric explained previously in this thread strongly supports this.

To give you a better insight about what has happened, imagine that your
family hire a consultant for an advice to change your personal name without
even asking you if you give consent and afterwards they come with a
proposed new name that might increase your career success. How would you
feel is exactly our community's attitude towards this rebranding.

Best regards,
Kiril

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 23:06 Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I think a rebranding to Wikipedia is the best branding option but, at the
> same time, I aknowledge that this can cause a wide variety of problems to
> so many people inside our community that doing it without a plan to give
> safety (not only legal, as their lives could be compromised) is a bigger
> danger than the benefits it causes.
>
>
>
> 2019 ira. 6 10:41 PM erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Isaac Olatunde <
> reachout2is...@gmail.com>):
>
> We sometimes spend several minutes trying to explain to potentials partners
> the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia and the relationship between
> them.
>
> In most cases we just use "Wikipedia" so as to not confuse them.
>
> Of course some people would share an opposing view for many reasons but I
> do think this rebranding is important.
>
> Regards
>
> Isaac
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 9:29 PM Strainu 
> > Pe vineri, 6 septembrie 2019, Adrian Raddatz  a
> > scris:
> >
> > > Yet another potentially good idea from the Foundation killed by the
> usual
> > > atrocious style of stakeholder management. No benefits framed for the
> > > community,
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > no indication that this change is coming from the bottom up,
> >
> >
> > Huh? Have you seriously never seen people asking the difference between
> > Wikipedia and Wikimedia or wiki(m|p) edians complaining about how hard it
> > is to explain that difference?
> >
> > This change is very much a bottom up one, even if it is pushed by the WMF
> > using corporate procedures rather than by the community using an RfC.
> >
> >
> >
> > > no
> > > assurance that this change happens or not based on the results of the
> > > consultation.
> >
> >
> > I would say that it was pretty clear the change will happen :)
> >
> > Strainu
> >
> > >
> > > You can't figure out the benefits to the community - your key
> stakeholder
> > > group - entirely as part of the consultation. You need to frame the
> > > consultation as figuring out how to achieve pre-identified benefits to
> > your
> > > stakeholders in the optimal way. You should also try to get buy-in from
> > key
> > > community groups *before* you start consulting, and use them as part of
> > the
> > > consultation, so it stops being Foundation vs. the community and turns
> > into
> > > the Foundation collaboratively supporting community-led ideas.
> > >
> > > It pains me to see this being done poorly, time and time again.
> > >
> > > Adrian Raddatz
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > paulospern...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > After the last disastrous WMF intervention in Wikipedia - Framgate -
> I
> > > > believe the timing is just perfect for the WMF to go forward with
> this
> > > fit
> > > > of creativity of branding themselves as the "Wikipedia Foundation".
> > > >
> > > > It's one after another, and never stops.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Paulo
> > > >
> > > > Yaroslav Blanter  escreveu no dia sexta, 6/09/2019
> > > à(s)
> > > > 18:25:
> > > >
> > > > > I agree with Fae. I strongly oppose the proposal, and I somehow
> used
> > to
> > > > > assume that our opinion would be asked in a structured way.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > Yaroslav
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:03 PM Fæ  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from
> > all
> > > > > > the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond
> > with
> > > > > > a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Something along the lines of:
> > > > > > "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and
> they
> > > > > > recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word
> > "Wikipedia"
> > > > > > and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons"
> to
> > > > > > ensure marketing of the projects can 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community feedback and next steps on movement brand proposal

[Adrian Raddatz]

Yet another potentially good idea from the Foundation killed by the usual
atrocious style of stakeholder management. No benefits framed for the
community, no indication that this change is coming from the bottom up, no
assurance that this change happens or not based on the results of the
consultation.

You can't figure out the benefits to the community - your key stakeholder
group - entirely as part of the consultation. You need to frame the
consultation as figuring out how to achieve pre-identified benefits to your
stakeholders in the optimal way. You should also try to get buy-in from key
community groups *before* you start consulting, and use them as part of the
consultation, so it stops being Foundation vs. the community and turns into
the Foundation collaboratively supporting community-led ideas.

It pains me to see this being done poorly, time and time again.

Adrian Raddatz


On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta 
wrote:

> After the last disastrous WMF intervention in Wikipedia - Framgate - I
> believe the timing is just perfect for the WMF to go forward with this fit
> of creativity of branding themselves as the "Wikipedia Foundation".
>
> It's one after another, and never stops.
>
> Best,
> Paulo
>
> Yaroslav Blanter  escreveu no dia sexta, 6/09/2019 à(s)
> 18:25:
>
> > I agree with Fae. I strongly oppose the proposal, and I somehow used to
> > assume that our opinion would be asked in a structured way.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:03 PM Fæ  wrote:
> >
> > > If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from all
> > > the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond with
> > > a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?
> > >
> > > Something along the lines of:
> > > "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and they
> > > recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word "Wikipedia"
> > > and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons" to
> > > ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the WMF.
> > > Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?"
> > >
> > > With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every discussion
> > > on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether "There
> > > is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There is
> > > considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual. Rather
> > > than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness that
> > > comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without
> > > firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and less
> > > credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from embedded
> > > bias, especially considering the already banked investment in
> > > consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove the
> > > spent money had impact and "value".
> > >
> > > P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word "collaboration" when
> > > communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate history
> > > and gives the impression that you are quoting views from collaborators
> > > rather than holding open collegial discussion.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Fae
> > >
> > > On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville <
> dranville-...@wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Pine.
> > > > There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding
> > > > proposition.
> > > > I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except that
> > it
> > > is
> > > > difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but it
> is
> > > > sometimes necessary).
> > > > Have other options even been considered?
> > > >
> > > > -speaking in my own name here-
> > > >
> > > > Diane
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello Zack,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for the report on Meta.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is
> > > considerable
> > > > > support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our
> > > > > movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to omit is
> > > that,
> > > > > according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable
> > opposition
> > > to
> > > > > the rebranding proposal.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having
> > > "considerable
> > > > > support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what appears to
> > be
> > > > > considerable opposition?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta displays
> that
> > > > > measure community and affiliate support or opposition regarding the
> > > > > rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and two
> of
> > > the
> > > > > three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was using
> those
> > > > > measures of sentiment to evaluate 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community feedback and next steps on movement brand proposal

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

After the last disastrous WMF intervention in Wikipedia - Framgate - I
believe the timing is just perfect for the WMF to go forward with this fit
of creativity of branding themselves as the "Wikipedia Foundation".

It's one after another, and never stops.

Best,
Paulo

Yaroslav Blanter  escreveu no dia sexta, 6/09/2019 à(s)
18:25:

> I agree with Fae. I strongly oppose the proposal, and I somehow used to
> assume that our opinion would be asked in a structured way.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:03 PM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from all
> > the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond with
> > a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?
> >
> > Something along the lines of:
> > "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and they
> > recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word "Wikipedia"
> > and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons" to
> > ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the WMF.
> > Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?"
> >
> > With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every discussion
> > on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether "There
> > is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There is
> > considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual. Rather
> > than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness that
> > comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without
> > firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and less
> > credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from embedded
> > bias, especially considering the already banked investment in
> > consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove the
> > spent money had impact and "value".
> >
> > P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word "collaboration" when
> > communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate history
> > and gives the impression that you are quoting views from collaborators
> > rather than holding open collegial discussion.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fae
> >
> > On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville  >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I agree with Pine.
> > > There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding
> > > proposition.
> > > I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except that
> it
> > is
> > > difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but it is
> > > sometimes necessary).
> > > Have other options even been considered?
> > >
> > > -speaking in my own name here-
> > >
> > > Diane
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello Zack,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for the report on Meta.
> > > >
> > > > I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is
> > considerable
> > > > support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our
> > > > movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to omit is
> > that,
> > > > according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable
> opposition
> > to
> > > > the rebranding proposal.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having
> > "considerable
> > > > support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what appears to
> be
> > > > considerable opposition?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta displays that
> > > > measure community and affiliate support or opposition regarding the
> > > > rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and two of
> > the
> > > > three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was using those
> > > > measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition regarding
> the
> > RfC,
> > > > I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as declined.
> > > >
> > > > Pine
> > > >
> > > > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > *Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design
> > process for
> > > > > movement branding.  Please join the in-depth discussion group, or
> > watch
> > > > for
> > > > > updates on Meta-Wiki.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello all,
> > > > >
> > > > > After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of
> > affiliates,
> > > > > several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am
> > pleased
> > > > > to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand
> > > > strategy
> > > > > [1].
> > > > >
> > > > > From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual
> > contributors and
> > > > > 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
> > > > >
> > > > >1.
> > > > >
> > > > >Reducing confusion
> > > > >2.
> > > > >
> > > > >Protecting reputation
> > > > >3.
> > > > >
> > > > >Supporting 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community feedback and next steps on movement brand proposal

[Strainu]

Pe vineri, 6 septembrie 2019, Adrian Raddatz  a scris:

> Yet another potentially good idea from the Foundation killed by the usual
> atrocious style of stakeholder management. No benefits framed for the
> community,



>
> no indication that this change is coming from the bottom up,


Huh? Have you seriously never seen people asking the difference between
Wikipedia and Wikimedia or wiki(m|p) edians complaining about how hard it
is to explain that difference?

This change is very much a bottom up one, even if it is pushed by the WMF
using corporate procedures rather than by the community using an RfC.



> no
> assurance that this change happens or not based on the results of the
> consultation.


I would say that it was pretty clear the change will happen :)

Strainu

>
> You can't figure out the benefits to the community - your key stakeholder
> group - entirely as part of the consultation. You need to frame the
> consultation as figuring out how to achieve pre-identified benefits to your
> stakeholders in the optimal way. You should also try to get buy-in from key
> community groups *before* you start consulting, and use them as part of the
> consultation, so it stops being Foundation vs. the community and turns into
> the Foundation collaboratively supporting community-led ideas.
>
> It pains me to see this being done poorly, time and time again.
>
> Adrian Raddatz
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > After the last disastrous WMF intervention in Wikipedia - Framgate - I
> > believe the timing is just perfect for the WMF to go forward with this
> fit
> > of creativity of branding themselves as the "Wikipedia Foundation".
> >
> > It's one after another, and never stops.
> >
> > Best,
> > Paulo
> >
> > Yaroslav Blanter  escreveu no dia sexta, 6/09/2019
> à(s)
> > 18:25:
> >
> > > I agree with Fae. I strongly oppose the proposal, and I somehow used to
> > > assume that our opinion would be asked in a structured way.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Yaroslav
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:03 PM Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > > > If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from all
> > > > the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond with
> > > > a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?
> > > >
> > > > Something along the lines of:
> > > > "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and they
> > > > recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word "Wikipedia"
> > > > and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons" to
> > > > ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the WMF.
> > > > Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?"
> > > >
> > > > With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every discussion
> > > > on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether
> "There
> > > > is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There is
> > > > considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual. Rather
> > > > than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness that
> > > > comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without
> > > > firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and less
> > > > credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from embedded
> > > > bias, especially considering the already banked investment in
> > > > consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove the
> > > > spent money had impact and "value".
> > > >
> > > > P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word "collaboration"
> when
> > > > communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate history
> > > > and gives the impression that you are quoting views from
> collaborators
> > > > rather than holding open collegial discussion.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Fae
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville <
> > dranville-...@wikimedia.org
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with Pine.
> > > > > There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding
> > > > > proposition.
> > > > > I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except
> that
> > > it
> > > > is
> > > > > difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but
> it
> > is
> > > > > sometimes necessary).
> > > > > Have other options even been considered?
> > > > >
> > > > > -speaking in my own name here-
> > > > >
> > > > > Diane
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Zack,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for the report on Meta.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is
> > > > considerable
> > > > > > support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve
> our
> > > > > > movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to omit
> is
> > > > that,
> > > > > > according to the report 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community feedback and next steps on movement brand proposal

[Benjamin Ikuta]

I agree that an RFC would be a reasonable way forward. 



> On Sep 6, 2019, at 10:02 AM, Fæ  wrote:
> 
> If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from all
> the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond with
> a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?
> 
> Something along the lines of:
> "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and they
> recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word "Wikipedia"
> and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons" to
> ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the WMF.
> Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?"
> 
> With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every discussion
> on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether "There
> is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There is
> considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual. Rather
> than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness that
> comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without
> firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and less
> credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from embedded
> bias, especially considering the already banked investment in
> consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove the
> spent money had impact and "value".
> 
> P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word "collaboration" when
> communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate history
> and gives the impression that you are quoting views from collaborators
> rather than holding open collegial discussion.
> 
> Thanks,
> Fae
> 
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville  
> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I agree with Pine.
>> There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding
>> proposition.
>> I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except that it is
>> difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but it is
>> sometimes necessary).
>> Have other options even been considered?
>> 
>> -speaking in my own name here-
>> 
>> Diane
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello Zack,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for the report on Meta.
>>> 
>>> I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is considerable
>>> support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our
>>> movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to omit is that,
>>> according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable opposition to
>>> the rebranding proposal.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having "considerable
>>> support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what appears to be
>>> considerable opposition?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta displays that
>>> measure community and affiliate support or opposition regarding the
>>> rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and two of the
>>> three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was using those
>>> measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition regarding the RfC,
>>> I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as declined.
>>> 
>>> Pine
>>> 
>>> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune  wrote:
>>> 
 *Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design process for
 movement branding.  Please join the in-depth discussion group, or watch
>>> for
 updates on Meta-Wiki.
 
 
 Hello all,
 
 After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of affiliates,
 several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am pleased
 to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand
>>> strategy
 [1].
 
 From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors and
 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
 
   1.
 
   Reducing confusion
   2.
 
   Protecting reputation
   3.
 
   Supporting sister projects
   4.
 
   Addressing (legal, governmental) risks
   5.
 
   Supporting movement growth
   6.
 
   The process of change
 
 Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You will see
 examples of comments within each section, along with a rough indication
>>> of
 how many of the comments that we received were related to each theme.
 
 The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that across our
>>> wide
 movement’s experience, different points of view are common (and a sign of
 health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created “polarity maps”
 which are used to help visualize how different arguments coexist in
>>> tension
 with each other.
 
 Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Departing the WMF, the Future of The Wikipedia Library, and What's Next?

[Isaac Olatunde]

Jake, we are really going to miss you. You are an inspiration and a role
model.

Today, I am happy to say that the discussion we had in 2015 about building
an active Wikimedia movement/community in Nigeria was productive.

After the discussion we had, I began to contact Wikipedia editors from
Nigeria via the "email this user" function. That was how I met Olaniyan
Olushola who also share the same mission. We began to preach Wikipedia from
one institutions to another, partner with several organizations to recruit
volunteers.

Jake, today Wikimedia movement is strong in Nigeria with 3 established user
groups, 6 Wikimedia Fan Clubs, 5 Wikimedia Hubs and more than a hundred
volunteer contributors.

Thank you for all your contributions. They will forever be remembered and
you'll always have a special place in my heart.

Farewell

Isaac



On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 5:14 PM Jake Orlowitz  Dear Wiki-Friends,
>
> September 6th marks the end of my time at the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> At my center has been the belief that I serve the movement above all else.
> This was what motivated the creation of a research service for editors in
> the first place. Today, it leaves me to look outside the Foundation to how
> I can best influence and impact change for the open knowledge community,
> and our broadly fractured society.
>
> When I founded The Wikipedia Library in 2011, the course of my life
> changed. I became a grantee with an Individual Engagement Grant, guided by
> Siko Bouterse and Anasuya Sengupta, to expand TWL. It was a dream fulfilled
> to be asked to join the Wikimedia Foundation full-time in 2014 to establish
> the program worldwide.
>
> With much mentorship and help, we grew TWL from a one-man, English-only
> publisher signup project into an international, multilingual outreach
> effort with a global campaign, national convenings, and a functioning
> digital library stocked with 100,000 free-to-read scholarly journals. Those
> sources can be used to verify information, write new articles, close
> content gaps, and remedy systemic bias.
>
>
> Now, librarians are as likely to be supporters and contributors as they
> used to be critics. The movement is full of 'wikibrarians', from the
> 200-member Wikimedia and Libraries User Group to the 2000 person Wikimedia
> + Libraries Facebook Group. Conferences around the world have strong
> advocates for the intersection and alliance of Wikipedia and Libraries.
>
> Along the way I had the true privilege of building a team that gave me
> confidence and extremely good company. It's my conviction that good work is
> calm, full of humor, and has care for people at its core. I found that
> generous spirit heartily alive in my team at The Wikipedia Library. I
> cannot thank them enough.
>
> The work is not yet finished and yet it is in good hands. With Sam Walton
> in charge of managing The Wikipedia Library, Felix Nartey and Aaron Vasanth
> running global outreach, Jason Sherman developing the Library Card
> Platform, and a whole crew of coordinated volunteers handling reference
> services…much more is still to come.
>
>
> You can reach out to TWL any time at wikipedialibr...@wikimedia.org.
>
> As I look ahead to new vistas, I leave with questions and hope to hear your
> thoughts. What needs to be done next? Who could use the most support? Which
> organizations are ripe for change? What capacity still needs to be created?
> Where can I best advocate and help grow? How can we collaborate?
>
>
> Email me at jorlow...@gmail.com and share what's on your mind, or just say
> hello.
>
>
> It's been a true pleasure to serve our beautiful, messy movement: I
> couldn't be more excited to join its ranks again.
>
>
> Thanks and cheers,
>
>
> 
>
> Jake Orlowitz
>
> User:Ocaasi
> ___
> 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] Community feedback and next steps on movement brand proposal

[Zack McCune]

Hi Pine -

Thanks for your questions. We set out to measure community appetite for
this change, knowing that it is something we share as our Movement's
identity and therefore something that needs broad support. On Meta-Wiki, we
shared our consultation metrics for assessing that support and/or
opposition [1].

In assessing the positions and comments shared during this 4 month
consultation, we noted that 38% of reviewing affiliates explicitly support
the branding proposal (almost 2x our goal of 20%). We also measured that
just 0.6% (57 people over more than 9,000 reached) of those reached during
the consultation explicitly opposed the proposal, which relates to our
benchmark that if "less than 20% oppose, we will consider the proposal to
have strong support." Hence the language used in our recommendation. We
will add the overall response metrics to Meta to document these outcomes.

Many of the reviewing parties identified things they would need to see
within a new brand system to consider it for approval and adoption. That's
what this next phase of collaboration allows!

yours,

- Zack

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/project_summary#Response_KPIs



Measure community appetite

for change

20% of affiliates support

Less than 20% of informed community oppose

✓ 38% of reviewing affiliates support

✓ 0.6% of informed oppose (57 users oppose of ~9,000 reached)

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:19 PM Diane Ranville 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I agree with Pine.
> There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding
> proposition.
> I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except that it is
> difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but it is
> sometimes necessary).
> Have other options even been considered?
>
> -speaking in my own name here-
>
> Diane
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Hello Zack,
> >
> > Thank you for the report on Meta.
> >
> > I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is considerable
> > support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our
> > movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to omit is that,
> > according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable opposition to
> > the rebranding proposal.
> >
> >
> > Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having
> "considerable
> > support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what appears to be
> > considerable opposition?
> >
> >
> > Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta displays that
> > measure community and affiliate support or opposition regarding the
> > rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and two of the
> > three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was using those
> > measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition regarding the
> RfC,
> > I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as declined.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune  wrote:
> >
> > > *Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design process
> for
> > > movement branding.  Please join the in-depth discussion group, or watch
> > for
> > > updates on Meta-Wiki.
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of
> affiliates,
> > > several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am
> pleased
> > > to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand
> > strategy
> > > [1].
> > >
> > > From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors
> and
> > > 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
> > >
> > >1.
> > >
> > >Reducing confusion
> > >2.
> > >
> > >Protecting reputation
> > >3.
> > >
> > >Supporting sister projects
> > >4.
> > >
> > >Addressing (legal, governmental) risks
> > >5.
> > >
> > >Supporting movement growth
> > >6.
> > >
> > >The process of change
> > >
> > > Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You will see
> > > examples of comments within each section, along with a rough indication
> > of
> > > how many of the comments that we received were related to each theme.
> > >
> > > The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that across our
> > wide
> > > movement’s experience, different points of view are common (and a sign
> of
> > > health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created “polarity maps”
> > > which are used to help visualize how different arguments coexist in
> > tension
> > > with each other.
> > >
> > > Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very thoughtful and
> > > useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s branding
> > > successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for assessing
> > > branding systems.
> > >
> > > == Thanks ==
> > >
> > > I would like to thank the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community feedback and next steps on movement brand proposal

[Fæ]

If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from all
the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond with
a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?

Something along the lines of:
"The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and they
recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word "Wikipedia"
and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons" to
ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the WMF.
Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?"

With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every discussion
on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether "There
is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There is
considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual. Rather
than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness that
comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without
firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and less
credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from embedded
bias, especially considering the already banked investment in
consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove the
spent money had impact and "value".

P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word "collaboration" when
communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate history
and gives the impression that you are quoting views from collaborators
rather than holding open collegial discussion.

Thanks,
Fae

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I agree with Pine.
> There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding
> proposition.
> I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except that it is
> difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but it is
> sometimes necessary).
> Have other options even been considered?
>
> -speaking in my own name here-
>
> Diane
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Hello Zack,
> >
> > Thank you for the report on Meta.
> >
> > I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is considerable
> > support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our
> > movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to omit is that,
> > according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable opposition to
> > the rebranding proposal.
> >
> >
> > Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having "considerable
> > support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what appears to be
> > considerable opposition?
> >
> >
> > Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta displays that
> > measure community and affiliate support or opposition regarding the
> > rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and two of the
> > three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was using those
> > measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition regarding the RfC,
> > I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as declined.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune  wrote:
> >
> > > *Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design process for
> > > movement branding.  Please join the in-depth discussion group, or watch
> > for
> > > updates on Meta-Wiki.
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of affiliates,
> > > several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am pleased
> > > to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand
> > strategy
> > > [1].
> > >
> > > From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors and
> > > 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
> > >
> > >1.
> > >
> > >Reducing confusion
> > >2.
> > >
> > >Protecting reputation
> > >3.
> > >
> > >Supporting sister projects
> > >4.
> > >
> > >Addressing (legal, governmental) risks
> > >5.
> > >
> > >Supporting movement growth
> > >6.
> > >
> > >The process of change
> > >
> > > Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You will see
> > > examples of comments within each section, along with a rough indication
> > of
> > > how many of the comments that we received were related to each theme.
> > >
> > > The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that across our
> > wide
> > > movement’s experience, different points of view are common (and a sign of
> > > health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created “polarity maps”
> > > which are used to help visualize how different arguments coexist in
> > tension
> > > with each other.
> > >
> > > Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very thoughtful and
> > > useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s branding
> > > successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for assessing
> > > 

[Wikimedia-l] Departing the WMF, the Future of The Wikipedia Library, and What's Next?

[Jake Orlowitz]

Dear Wiki-Friends,

September 6th marks the end of my time at the Wikimedia Foundation.

At my center has been the belief that I serve the movement above all else.
This was what motivated the creation of a research service for editors in
the first place. Today, it leaves me to look outside the Foundation to how
I can best influence and impact change for the open knowledge community,
and our broadly fractured society.

When I founded The Wikipedia Library in 2011, the course of my life
changed. I became a grantee with an Individual Engagement Grant, guided by
Siko Bouterse and Anasuya Sengupta, to expand TWL. It was a dream fulfilled
to be asked to join the Wikimedia Foundation full-time in 2014 to establish
the program worldwide.

With much mentorship and help, we grew TWL from a one-man, English-only
publisher signup project into an international, multilingual outreach
effort with a global campaign, national convenings, and a functioning
digital library stocked with 100,000 free-to-read scholarly journals. Those
sources can be used to verify information, write new articles, close
content gaps, and remedy systemic bias.


Now, librarians are as likely to be supporters and contributors as they
used to be critics. The movement is full of 'wikibrarians', from the
200-member Wikimedia and Libraries User Group to the 2000 person Wikimedia
+ Libraries Facebook Group. Conferences around the world have strong
advocates for the intersection and alliance of Wikipedia and Libraries.

Along the way I had the true privilege of building a team that gave me
confidence and extremely good company. It's my conviction that good work is
calm, full of humor, and has care for people at its core. I found that
generous spirit heartily alive in my team at The Wikipedia Library. I
cannot thank them enough.

The work is not yet finished and yet it is in good hands. With Sam Walton
in charge of managing The Wikipedia Library, Felix Nartey and Aaron Vasanth
running global outreach, Jason Sherman developing the Library Card
Platform, and a whole crew of coordinated volunteers handling reference
services…much more is still to come.


You can reach out to TWL any time at wikipedialibr...@wikimedia.org.

As I look ahead to new vistas, I leave with questions and hope to hear your
thoughts. What needs to be done next? Who could use the most support? Which
organizations are ripe for change? What capacity still needs to be created?
Where can I best advocate and help grow? How can we collaborate?


Email me at jorlow...@gmail.com and share what's on your mind, or just say
hello.


It's been a true pleasure to serve our beautiful, messy movement: I
couldn't be more excited to join its ranks again.


Thanks and cheers,




Jake Orlowitz

User:Ocaasi
___
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] Community feedback and next steps on movement brand proposal

[Diane Ranville]

Hi,

I agree with Pine.
There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding
proposition.
I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except that it is
difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but it is
sometimes necessary).
Have other options even been considered?

-speaking in my own name here-

Diane

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W  wrote:

> Hello Zack,
>
> Thank you for the report on Meta.
>
> I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is considerable
> support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our
> movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to omit is that,
> according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable opposition to
> the rebranding proposal.
>
>
> Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having "considerable
> support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what appears to be
> considerable opposition?
>
>
> Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta displays that
> measure community and affiliate support or opposition regarding the
> rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and two of the
> three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was using those
> measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition regarding the RfC,
> I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as declined.
>
> Pine
>
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune  wrote:
>
> > *Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design process for
> > movement branding.  Please join the in-depth discussion group, or watch
> for
> > updates on Meta-Wiki.
> >
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of affiliates,
> > several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am pleased
> > to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand
> strategy
> > [1].
> >
> > From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors and
> > 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
> >
> >1.
> >
> >Reducing confusion
> >2.
> >
> >Protecting reputation
> >3.
> >
> >Supporting sister projects
> >4.
> >
> >Addressing (legal, governmental) risks
> >5.
> >
> >Supporting movement growth
> >6.
> >
> >The process of change
> >
> > Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You will see
> > examples of comments within each section, along with a rough indication
> of
> > how many of the comments that we received were related to each theme.
> >
> > The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that across our
> wide
> > movement’s experience, different points of view are common (and a sign of
> > health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created “polarity maps”
> > which are used to help visualize how different arguments coexist in
> tension
> > with each other.
> >
> > Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very thoughtful and
> > useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s branding
> > successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for assessing
> > branding systems.
> >
> > == Thanks ==
> >
> > I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia Education
> > Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold discussions
> during
> > their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues Elena Lappen,
> > Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive parts of this
> > consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of affiliates
> > commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering your
> > perspectives and insights.
> >
> >
> > == Next steps and staying involved ==
> >
> > There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general appetite
> > to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we believe that
> > critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for precisely
> what
> > branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have shared these
> > insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of Trustees, who
> > approved continuing these efforts.
> >
> > Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on formal brand
> > naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will use
> “Wikipedia”
> > as the central reference point. The resulting system will be OPT-IN for
> > affiliates.
> >
> > This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a group of
> > volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during this
> > consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and we invite
> you
> > to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to host this
> > discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid discussions and
> > room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you do not want
> to
> > commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be happening
>