[Wikimedia-l] Qu’est-ce qui vous rend heureux cette semaine? / What's making you happy this week? (Week of 8 September 2019)

[Pine W]

*The English Wikipedia Teahouse*

* The English Wikipedia Teahouse
 recently surpassed 1000
pages of archives. The Teahouse seems to be very successful.


*Pictures of the day from various wikis, with descriptions in English*

* French Wikipedia: "A Menger sponge with ray tracing. In the sponge-center
is a light source. The image illustrates the functionality of ray tracing
by computers and the resulting shadow position and orientation."

* English Wikipedia: "Pied kingfisher (*Ceryle rudis leucomelanurus*)
female, Chambal River, UP, India"

* Commons: architecture photo of an escalator in the Umeda Sky Building.
Osaka Prefecture, Japan

* English Wikipedia: "Wells Cathedral's nave, viewed from the entrance, in
Somerset, England"

* English Wikipedia: cactus "*Mammillaria spinosissima* var. '*rubrispina*'
('Super Red')", which is endemic to central Mexico

* English Wikipedia: social worker, civic activist, and Nobel Prize winner
Jane Addams

* Hindi Wikipedia: "Caravan in the desert, Morocco, Sahara"

* French Wikipedia: "Veraison (the onset of ripening) of Zinfandel grapes
in Dry Creek Valley, Sonoma County, California"

* French Wikipedia: self-portrait of Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh


*Breaking news coverage of weather incidents*

English Wikipedia seems to have some highly active weather enthusiasts who
cover topics such as *Hurricane Dorian
*, along with many people
who are willing to write about breaking news stories. Although weather
emergencies are bad news, English Wikipedia's timely and detailed coverage
of them is good to see.


* Operation Enduring Encyclopedia *

* Password requirements were strengthened for Wikimedia user accounts to
deter users from having any of the 100,000 most common passwords. See
Pabricator
task T151425 .
* Wikimedia Foundation staff responded to a distributed denial of service
attack 
on 6 September 2019. See Phabricator task T232224
 and this email

.
* Preparations are underway for English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee
elections in December 2019
.


*English Wikiquote of the Day*

I'll get an inspiration and start painting; then I'll forget everything,
everything except how things used to be and how to paint it so people will
know how we used to live.
  —American folk artist Grandma Moses


*Off wiki*

* Humility  is a virtue
. I felt irritated by my errors in
the WMHYTW email that I sent last week to on Wikimedia-l [1
]
[2
],
but I reminded myself that “to err is human” and even “professionals” make
mistakes. This (Youtube link) 
is a collection of bloopers from the movie *Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
*. If you saw
the movie then you'll probably appreciate the bloopers more, but even if
you haven't seen the movie, you can probably understand some of the humor.
A few explanations about the bloopers may help. Commander Uhura
 was supposed to say that sensors were
receiving whale song; the movie was directed by Leonard Nimoy
 who also acted in the movie
as Mr. Spock ; and one of the film's
settings is the fictional Cetacean Institute
 which in the movie held two humpback
whales . My favorite segment
of the blooper reel involves the discussion of "exact change

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

[Pine W]

 I too think that an RfC is a good option here. I suggest having multiple
questions in the RfC. Questions could include, "What should the
organization that is currently known as the Wikimedia Foundation be
named?", "Should there be a unifying brand for the online projects such as
Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Commons?", "If there is a unifying brand
for the online projects then what should it be?", "Should there be a
unifying brand for affiliates?", and "If there is a unifying brand for
affiliates then what should it be?"

Overall I think that the report on Meta

makes for good reading as background information for an RfC.

I want to caution against trying to make too many big decisions at once.
There is already a strategy process underway which has consumed a
considerable number of volunteer hours, and the community has precious
little capacity relative to normal operational demands without this ongoing
strategy process being piled on top of everything else that people want the
community to do. There seems to be infinite demand for free skilled labor,
but a finite supply of that same labor. I encourage both WMF and the
community to think carefully about which questions to prioritize so that we
are not all overstretched and a significant number of problems slip through
the cracks because collectively there were not adequate human resources to
thoughtfully address so many questions in a narrow period of time and
develop consensus regarding how to move forward.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
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

[effe iets anders]

Now imagine trying to explain the difference between a chapter, the
Foundation and the community when they have the same name...

Lodewijk

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 1:41 PM Isaac Olatunde 
wrote:

> 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > 

[Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimedia site and system outages

[Heather Walls]

Hello everyone,

By now you are likely aware that the Wikimedia sites suffered from a
relatively significant botnet driven DDOS attack on September 6th, taking
them offline in several countries throughout the day. This primarily
affected Wikipedia access in Europe and the Middle East. We posted a short
update of the event on our website.[1]

I would like to thank everyone who stepped up to support the restoration of
our projects, including the fast reporting of community members throughout
the world and our security and engineering teams who worked long hours to
address many complex issues surrounding the attack and our response—the
Site Reliability Engineering team in particular.

The Wikimedia Foundation leadership team is proud to work with such
talented and dedicated staff and supporters.

Yours,
Heather


1.
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/09/07/malicious-attack-on-wikipedia-what-we-know-and-what-were-doing/

"Today, Wikipedia was hit with a malicious attack that has taken it offline
in several countries for intermittent periods. The attack is ongoing and
our Site Reliability Engineering team is working hard to stop it and
restore access to the site.

As one of the world’s most popular sites, Wikipedia sometimes attracts “bad
faith” actors. Along with the rest of the web, we operate in an
increasingly sophisticated and complex environment where threats are
continuously evolving. Because of this, the Wikimedia communities and
Wikimedia Foundation have created dedicated systems and staff to regularly
monitor and address risks. If a problem occurs, we learn, we improve, and
we prepare to be better for next time.

We condemn these sorts of attacks. They’re not just about taking Wikipedia
offline. Takedown attacks threaten everyone’s fundamental rights to freely
access and share information. We in the Wikimedia movement and Foundation
are committed to protecting these rights for everyone.

Right now, we’re continuing to work to restore access wherever you might be
reading Wikipedia in the world. We’ll keep you posted."


-- 

Heather Walls (she/her)

Chief Creative Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
https://wikimediafoundation.org
___
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

[Todd Allen]

Yes, let's see an actually public RfC on this. We shouldn't have to argue
about what the support/oppose proportions are, we should see it right there
on an on-wiki page where anyone is free to review them.

Todd

On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 2:06 PM David Gerard  wrote:

> I concur, it sounds sensible.
>
> (I'll note, I'm not actually against the name change proposal - but
> it's got to be presented to the community properly.)
>
> On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 20:50, Kiril Simeonovski
>  wrote:
> >
> > HI David,
> >
> > Yes, it stands to reason to announce on all wikis in a similar way as the
> > announcements about board or steward elections.
> >
> > Best,
> > Kiril
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 9:46 PM David Gerard  wrote:
> >
> > > On all wikis?
> > >
> > > On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 19:19, Yaroslav Blanter 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Right.
> > > >
> > > > I guess a central notice about an RfC would be appropriate.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Yaroslav
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 8:16 PM Kiril Simeonovski <
> > > > kiril.simeonov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems like there is a clear consensus to open an RfC on Meta
> about
> > > this,
> > > > > so we can safely move forward with it and close this thread.
> > > Otherwise, we
> > > > > will most likely keep up boggling our minds with the 20-per-cent
> > > metric and
> > > > > endlessly discuss how unfortunate is this for the global community
> > > when the
> > > > > only rational thing we can do is take action and save everyone's
> time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you have any concluding remarks or comments regarding the RfC?
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Kiril
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 7:57 PM Ferdinando Traversa <
> > > > > ferdi.trave...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I’m against and sincerly I don’t trust this datas (80% agrees?
> Are
> > > you
> > > > > > kidding me? I’ve seen the meta discussion). I think a Meta CLEAR
> > > VOTE as
> > > > > > suggested here is the best way. Imposing a change like this is a
> > > wrong
> > > > > > decision.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Il giorno 6 set 2019, alle ore 05:49, Zack McCune <
> > > > > zmcc...@wikimedia.org>
> > > > > > ha scritto:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *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
> > > 

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

[David Gerard]

I concur, it sounds sensible.

(I'll note, I'm not actually against the name change proposal - but
it's got to be presented to the community properly.)

On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 20:50, Kiril Simeonovski
 wrote:
>
> HI David,
>
> Yes, it stands to reason to announce on all wikis in a similar way as the
> announcements about board or steward elections.
>
> Best,
> Kiril
>
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 9:46 PM David Gerard  wrote:
>
> > On all wikis?
> >
> > On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 19:19, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
> > >
> > > Right.
> > >
> > > I guess a central notice about an RfC would be appropriate.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Yaroslav
> > >
> > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 8:16 PM Kiril Simeonovski <
> > > kiril.simeonov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > It seems like there is a clear consensus to open an RfC on Meta about
> > this,
> > > > so we can safely move forward with it and close this thread.
> > Otherwise, we
> > > > will most likely keep up boggling our minds with the 20-per-cent
> > metric and
> > > > endlessly discuss how unfortunate is this for the global community
> > when the
> > > > only rational thing we can do is take action and save everyone's time.
> > > >
> > > > Do you have any concluding remarks or comments regarding the RfC?
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Kiril
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 7:57 PM Ferdinando Traversa <
> > > > ferdi.trave...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I’m against and sincerly I don’t trust this datas (80% agrees? Are
> > you
> > > > > kidding me? I’ve seen the meta discussion). I think a Meta CLEAR
> > VOTE as
> > > > > suggested here is the best way. Imposing a change like this is a
> > wrong
> > > > > decision.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Il giorno 6 set 2019, alle ore 05:49, Zack McCune <
> > > > zmcc...@wikimedia.org>
> > > > > ha scritto:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *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 

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

[Kiril Simeonovski]

HI David,

Yes, it stands to reason to announce on all wikis in a similar way as the
announcements about board or steward elections.

Best,
Kiril

On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 9:46 PM David Gerard  wrote:

> On all wikis?
>
> On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 19:19, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
> >
> > Right.
> >
> > I guess a central notice about an RfC would be appropriate.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 8:16 PM Kiril Simeonovski <
> > kiril.simeonov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > It seems like there is a clear consensus to open an RfC on Meta about
> this,
> > > so we can safely move forward with it and close this thread.
> Otherwise, we
> > > will most likely keep up boggling our minds with the 20-per-cent
> metric and
> > > endlessly discuss how unfortunate is this for the global community
> when the
> > > only rational thing we can do is take action and save everyone's time.
> > >
> > > Do you have any concluding remarks or comments regarding the RfC?
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Kiril
> > >
> > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 7:57 PM Ferdinando Traversa <
> > > ferdi.trave...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I’m against and sincerly I don’t trust this datas (80% agrees? Are
> you
> > > > kidding me? I’ve seen the meta discussion). I think a Meta CLEAR
> VOTE as
> > > > suggested here is the best way. Imposing a change like this is a
> wrong
> > > > decision.
> > > >
> > > > Regards.
> > > >
> > > > > Il giorno 6 set 2019, alle ore 05:49, Zack McCune <
> > > zmcc...@wikimedia.org>
> > > > ha scritto:
> > > > >
> > > > > *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 

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

[David Gerard]

On all wikis?

On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 19:19, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> Right.
>
> I guess a central notice about an RfC would be appropriate.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 8:16 PM Kiril Simeonovski <
> kiril.simeonov...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > It seems like there is a clear consensus to open an RfC on Meta about this,
> > so we can safely move forward with it and close this thread. Otherwise, we
> > will most likely keep up boggling our minds with the 20-per-cent metric and
> > endlessly discuss how unfortunate is this for the global community when the
> > only rational thing we can do is take action and save everyone's time.
> >
> > Do you have any concluding remarks or comments regarding the RfC?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Kiril
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 7:57 PM Ferdinando Traversa <
> > ferdi.trave...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I’m against and sincerly I don’t trust this datas (80% agrees? Are you
> > > kidding me? I’ve seen the meta discussion). I think a Meta CLEAR VOTE as
> > > suggested here is the best way. Imposing a change like this is a wrong
> > > decision.
> > >
> > > Regards.
> > >
> > > > Il giorno 6 set 2019, alle ore 05:49, Zack McCune <
> > zmcc...@wikimedia.org>
> > > ha scritto:
> > > >
> > > > *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. 

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

[Yaroslav Blanter]

Right.

I guess a central notice about an RfC would be appropriate.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 8:16 PM Kiril Simeonovski <
kiril.simeonov...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> It seems like there is a clear consensus to open an RfC on Meta about this,
> so we can safely move forward with it and close this thread. Otherwise, we
> will most likely keep up boggling our minds with the 20-per-cent metric and
> endlessly discuss how unfortunate is this for the global community when the
> only rational thing we can do is take action and save everyone's time.
>
> Do you have any concluding remarks or comments regarding the RfC?
>
> Best regards,
> Kiril
>
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 7:57 PM Ferdinando Traversa <
> ferdi.trave...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I’m against and sincerly I don’t trust this datas (80% agrees? Are you
> > kidding me? I’ve seen the meta discussion). I think a Meta CLEAR VOTE as
> > suggested here is the best way. Imposing a change like this is a wrong
> > decision.
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> > > Il giorno 6 set 2019, alle ore 05:49, Zack McCune <
> zmcc...@wikimedia.org>
> > ha scritto:
> > >
> > > *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
> > > within the brand network group, we will still be tracking comments left
> > on
> > > the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important ideas and
> > > updates originating from the 

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

[Kiril Simeonovski]

Hi all,

It seems like there is a clear consensus to open an RfC on Meta about this,
so we can safely move forward with it and close this thread. Otherwise, we
will most likely keep up boggling our minds with the 20-per-cent metric and
endlessly discuss how unfortunate is this for the global community when the
only rational thing we can do is take action and save everyone's time.

Do you have any concluding remarks or comments regarding the RfC?

Best regards,
Kiril

On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 7:57 PM Ferdinando Traversa 
wrote:

> I’m against and sincerly I don’t trust this datas (80% agrees? Are you
> kidding me? I’ve seen the meta discussion). I think a Meta CLEAR VOTE as
> suggested here is the best way. Imposing a change like this is a wrong
> decision.
>
> Regards.
>
> > Il giorno 6 set 2019, alle ore 05:49, Zack McCune 
> ha scritto:
> >
> > *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
> > within the brand network group, we will still be tracking comments left
> on
> > the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important ideas and
> > updates originating from the brand network discussion will be shared
> > publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki.
> >
> > The development of this proposed identity system will take approximately
> 6
> > months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing lists,
> > Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where you are most
> > comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the power to
> decide
> > if/when they opt in to using the new system.
> >
> > Yours,
> >
> > Zack
> >
> > 

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

[Dan Szymborski]

Given the typical response rate for polling is extremely low, even among
groups of people who agreed to be polled, the 20% metric is absurd. If you
put out some random notice among a million other emails to 9,000 people on
various lists submitting a proposition to change the name to Fart Factory
Incorporated, there's not a chance you'll get 1,800 to oppose it. Even a
random internet poll, paying no attention to issues of sampling would be
more accurate than this because at least internet polls don't include
non-responses as either yes or no to the question being asked. If you're
going to ask the community for input on something, then it should be done
properly

Best,

Dan

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:59 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
wrote:

>
>
> 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.
> 
>    

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

[Ferdinando Traversa]

I’m against and sincerly I don’t trust this datas (80% agrees? Are you kidding 
me? I’ve seen the meta discussion). I think a Meta CLEAR VOTE as suggested here 
is the best way. Imposing a change like this is a wrong decision. 

Regards.

> Il giorno 6 set 2019, alle ore 05:49, Zack McCune  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> *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
> within the brand network group, we will still be tracking comments left on
> the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important ideas and
> updates originating from the brand network discussion will be shared
> publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki.
> 
> The development of this proposed identity system will take approximately 6
> months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing lists,
> Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where you are most
> comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the power to decide
> if/when they opt in to using the new system.
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Zack
> 
> [1]
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-brand-proposal-for-2030/
> 
> 
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review/results
> 
> 
> [3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and click the gray
> "Request" button. When your request is approved, you will be able to see
> and access the brand network discussion category on the Discuss Space main
> page.
> 
> [4]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Zack McCune (he/him)
> 
> Director of Brand
> 
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> 

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

[Mario Gómez]

On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 11:58 AM Mario Gómez  wrote:

>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:49 AM Zack McCune  wrote:
>
>>
>> From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors and
>> 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
>>
>>
> * Opposition percentage is set at 0.6% for informed (reached) users, it
> would be 38% of reviewing users.
>
>
With respect to the what would be considered a high opposition rate, do you
realize that 20% of _reached_ users means that the bar was set to 1,800
users to voice their opposition explicitly?

Best,

MarioGom
___
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

[Strainu]

Pe sâmbătă, 7 septembrie 2019, Adrian Raddatz  a scris:

> 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.


I was not mocking you. Maybe ":)" was not the most appropriate emoticon in
the context, but when the WMF comes up with such grand plans the default
line of thought should be the change will happen unless there is a huge
push back from the community. In this case, the push back has been mild at
best.


And I really
> don't see how it is desirable that the Foundation is willing to push ideas
> through without community support.


I have come to realize that what the community *thinks* about our users and
the reality can be a world apart. We are also adverse to change (by design,
mostly). These things mean that sometimes courageous ideas will need to be
pushed in spite of the vocal opposition of some particularly conservative
members of the community.

Also, as I said, in this particular case the feedback has not been clearly
negative, so I would not call the process as being "without community
support". P


> Again, are they a top-down governance
> organization, or a service organization aimed at supporting and empowering
> the editing community and readership?


Unfortunately right now more of the former. There is a significant number
of employees that simply don't understand why they should wait for and
listen to community feedback.

But employees can be replaced if there is enough will. The real danger
comes from the strategy recommendations that explicitly ask for more
coordination from the wmf regarding a range of subjects.

Strainu

>
> 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
> > > 

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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The right question here: how have you supported the sister projects in the
past. The follow question: Branding is about getting attention for
products. How will the sister projects benefit from more attention to
Wikipedia?

The point is we have not marketed the products from sister projects. We
could have and the results would have been wildly important and relevant to
a mission where we aim to share in the sum of all knowledge.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 13:40, Lucas Werkmeister 
wrote:

> On 06.09.19 05:49, Zack McCune wrote:
> >3.
> >
> >Supporting sister projects
>
> I am extremely wary of this phrasing. Instead of a family of projects
> working together towards a shared goal, to me this invokes the image of
> a big, central Wikipedia who graciously supports the other,
> insignificant projects out of the goodness of her heart. As a Wikidata
> editor, that is not how I want my relation to this movement characterized.
>
> ___
> 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] [Wikitech-l] Introducing WikiContrib 1.0!

[Gergo Tisza]

On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 5:25 AM Rammanoj Potla 
wrote:

> I am happy to introduce you to the first version of WikiContrib
> . WikiContrib is a developer
> metrics tool which can be used to view a developer’s contributions on
> Phabricator and Gerrit. This tool was initially designed keeping a
> Wikimedia Hackathon scholarship committee in mind and with the hope that
> the tool will make it easier for them to decide on a candidate’s
> application. All community members can also use the tool to learn more
> about the contributions of fellow Wikimedians or discover their own!
>

Very cool tool!

IMO the usability could be improved a lot by removing the little red icon
from the first row when it is the only one (it seems like some sort of "the
fields are not filled out correctly" feedback when it is actually just a
"delete row" button which does not make sense with just one row), and
making the search button much more prominent compared to the other
controls. Also maybe making it possible to search by pressing enter in one
of the text fields.

It would be particularly awesome (but maybe hard?) to also count Gerrit
comments/reviews/merges as contributions.
___
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

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

By the way, the solution is really easy: The Wiki Foundation.

2019 ira. 7 1:39 PM erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Lucas Werkmeister 
):

On 06.09.19 05:49, Zack McCune wrote:
>3.
>
>Supporting sister projects

I am extremely wary of this phrasing. Instead of a family of projects
working together towards a shared goal, to me this invokes the image of
a big, central Wikipedia who graciously supports the other,
insignificant projects out of the goodness of her heart. As a Wikidata
editor, that is not how I want my relation to this movement characterized.

___
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

[Lucas Werkmeister]

On 06.09.19 05:49, Zack McCune wrote:
>3.
> 
>Supporting sister projects

I am extremely wary of this phrasing. Instead of a family of projects
working together towards a shared goal, to me this invokes the image of
a big, central Wikipedia who graciously supports the other,
insignificant projects out of the goodness of her heart. As a Wikidata
editor, that is not how I want my relation to this movement characterized.

___
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

[Mario Gómez]

Hello,

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:49 AM Zack McCune  wrote:

>
> From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors and
> 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
>
>
The benchmark is completely twisted to make opposition impossible:

* Support and Opposition are measured by different metrics: Support is
measured by "reviewing affiliates support" and opposition by "informed user
opposition".
* Support percentage is set at 38% for reviewing affiliates (24
affiliates?), it would be roughly 19% for reached affiliates and 15% of
total affiliates.
* Opposition percentage is set at 0.6% for informed (reached) users, it
would be 38% of reviewing users.

On the other hand:

* Opposition from reviewing affiliates is 9.5%.
* Support from reviewing users is 13% (vs 38% oppose)
* Support from reached users is around 0.2% (vs 0.6% oppose).

The support and opposition metrics seem to be cherry-picked to force a
strong support result, but that is not the case when comparable metrics are
used.

I agree that a proper RFC should be created, possibly at the initiative of
the community, to get a clearer result.

Best,

MarioGom
___
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,