Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

[Ad Huikeshoven]

Thank you Nat. I'm Dutch, and the Dutch are known to be direct, and even I
find your extensive statement direct. That was your intent to do. Thanks, I
welcome that. I know nearly every other culture would prefer less direct
communication.

As an employer you have a duty to protect your employees against
intimidation by volunteers. As a volunteer I also like to be protected
against intimidation.

In this process I have a lonely voice among volunteers, and I do not feel
intimidated. This in contrast to conversations years ago. Maybe I have
developed.

I wish you have adequate procedures to deal with situations in which
employees are intimidated.

The emotions are high among many volunteers, who feel betrayed, not seen
and not heard, and not recognized for their volunteer work.

Volunteers care for the autonomy of the online communities to self govern.
They fear the brand renaming as a power grap by the WMF  to control the
projects, and moreover favor one over all the others.

Commons and Wikidata are big projects now, and volunteers fear that
renaming to Wikipedia will change the status of those projects, and fear
less attention or support for those projects by the Foundation.

Could you please indicate the position of the Board with respect to
autonomy and self governance of the online communities, and with respect to
support for Commons, Wikidata and other sister projects?

Another fear by many volunteers is on going centralization, centering more
power and resources in the Foundation, in contrast with affiliates and
communities. One of the central themes of the 2018-2020 Strategy process
was a clear call for decentralization and creation of regional/thematic
hubs.

Could you please indicate the position of the Board with respect to
centralization and decentralization?

My estimate is that the Foundation will raise between 2 and 3 billion
dollars between now and 2030. Mostly from small donor contributions.

Could you indicate the Board estimate for this period, and indicate in
which direction you plan to spend the revenue? What will be the slice of
the cake for the affiliates. It looks like that by 2030 there will be
enough money to fund an affiliate office in every country. How likely is a
move in that direction?

Deadline to respond is 14 calendar days. Please do extend the answering
period of the survey with 14 days as well, so people will be able to digest
answers to the above questions before filling out the survey.

Have a nice day,


Ad Huikeshoven


Op ma 22 jun. 2020 02:44 schreef Nataliia Tymkiv :

> Dear all,
>
> As Acting Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees since March
> [1] I take full responsibility for this situation. I am truly sorry for all
> the frustration this whole situation has caused to volunteers, who have
> engaged in discussions expressing their concerns, and to the staff, who
> have been working and not really sure if that is really the direction the
> Board is prepared to seriously consider, or if it is just an exercise on
> our part. As Chair of the Board, I recognize the Board owes clear
> information to the communities and guidance to the staff.
>
> In 2017, the Board approved the 2030 Movement Strategic Direction,
> recognizing the strategic importance of growing the reach of the Wikimedia
> projects to new languages, communities, and geographies, as part of our
> global mission. In June 2018, the Board approved a Foundation Annual Plan
> that included research into the Wikimedia and Wikipedia brands to
> understand how they could be tools in helping us reach these goals.
>
> In November 2018 [2], the staff presented research to the Board about the
> Wikipedia and Wikimedia brands. I personally, even though a relatively long
> term Wikipedian (and a bit less long term Wikimedian), was basically
> convinced by the findings that a rebranding is needed and beneficial for
> our mission and global vision, and furthermore that it should be based on
> the Wikipedia brand. The information presented there also convinced the
> Board that the team should continue their work, but as you can see from the
> minutes the Board believed that communication is crucial, but already a
> possibility for a new name for the Wikimedia Foundation was seriously
> considered [3].
>
> And I am going to be frank here - intuitively taking the name of something
> like “Wikipedia Foundation” makes a lot of sense, whether or not it makes
> sense upon deeper consideration. But, of course, no one was planning to
> just rename the organisation, more conversations were needed. It was
> convincing enough for us (the Board) to approve the budget for this
> initiative.
>
> The Board has received regular updates about the Brand work along the way,
> including approving continued work in the 2019 and 2020 annual plans.
> However, the Board has not yet had a very serious, frank conversation about
> what the Board will do when the work is finished, including how to balance
> feedback from many communiti

[Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on the rebranding initiative:: Other

[Paul J. Weiss]

[From my comments in the rebranding survey]

Other

"We network around our best-known brand to connect the movement together".
That feels like marketing-speak. It is unclear what you are trying to
communicate. I do not think that contributors of non-WP projects want to
"network" around Wikipedia.

The lack of hierarchy in names is detrimental to communication and
understanding of our work.

Paul Weiss
User:Libcub
___
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] Thoughts on the rebranding initiative: Name of WMF

[Paul J. Weiss]

[From my comments in the rebranding survey]

Name of WMF

To me a trust implies one party relegating authority over a resource to a
second party, who is expected to manage it well, and return it at some
point to the first party or a third party. I do not see the WMF's role as
including such as a notion. I also do not think that including "Trust"
makes it any clearer that the WMF is where to go for legal issues. (Also, I
do find it ironic that the proposal suggests incorporating the word "Trust"
in the name of WMF, given how low the community trust in WMF is.)

"Wikimedia Organization" does not sound like the name of something, but
rather a general description of it.

"Wiki" is too generic to refer to WMF projects--there are far too many
other wikis in the world. I have to say I am truly astonished to see this
presented as a legitmate option. Various other wiki communities (such as
those at fandom.com) would be understandably furious with WMF for trying to
co-opt "Wiki" for themselves. How could that possibly not be damaging to
our reputation?

I think "Foundation" is a good word to describe what WMF does.

Paul Weiss
User:Libcub
___
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] Thoughts on the rebranding initiative: Wikimedia vs. Wikipedia

[Paul J. Weiss]

[From my comments in the rebranding survey]

Wikimedia vs. Wikipedia

Our overall community centers around the current Wikimedia concept, not
Wikipedia. Naming the whole from one its parts is ambiguous, confusing, and
disrespectful to non-Wikipedia projects. The majority of the population of
the United States is white, but it would be absolutely preposterous to
rename the country to the White United States of America, even if that is
how people in other countries (and Americans) think of it.

We are not selling a product or service. I think it is _good_ that some
organizations and people do not know about our plethora of projects, as
that gives us an opportunity to talk with them about the other projects. I
believe that changing the name to "Wikipedia" will make it more difficult
to get outsiders to pay attention to non-Wikipedia projects.

I believe that moving to "Wikipedia" will damage our reputation. In
addition to the reasons above, it will likely alienate at least some of
those involved in non-Wikipedia projects. It could turn the community into
the Wikipedia community, as our other projects fade away.

Paul Weiss
User:Libcub
___
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] Thoughts on the rebranding initiative: "Movement"

[Paul J. Weiss]

[From my comments in the rebranding survey]

"Movement"

Please stop calling us a "movement". I am an active Wikipedia contributor,
but I do not feel part of a movement. Know that I feel excluded when we are
referred to as a movement. I would guess that most Wikimedians do not
consider themselves part of a movement. I feel that I am part of the
Wikimedia _community_.

Note that in the English Wikipedia the title of the relevant article is
indeed "Wikipedia community", _not_ "Wikipedia movement" (which is a
redirect). In fact, the word "movement" does not appear in the main text of
the article at all. "Wikimedia movement" is the title of its article, but
it is described as "the global community of contributors to Wikimedia
Foundation projects". A community of contributors is not the same thing as
a movement. I would say that none of the definitions given in the
Definitions section of the Social movement article apply to us.

One significant problem to using "movement" is that some, including the
WMF, exploit the connotations of the word towards social justice, or a
"greater good", as a rationalization for behaviors that a community might
not support (and in many cases our community has indeed opposed WMF's
behavior). Another is the implication that there is basically a core set of
beliefs and priorities that all those involved support. This is clearly not
the case in the Wikimedia community. I also think there is an assumption
that in a movement, there are institutions that those in the movement
explicitly or implicitly authorize to speak for them. Again, clearly this
is not the case in the Wikimedia community overall.

Paul Weiss
User:Libcub
___
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] Board Update on Branding

[Rajeeb Dutta]

Greetings,

Hope my mail finds you in the best of health and spirit. I like to take the 
opportunity to thank you for a penning a detailed email with clarification. 
Yes, we all looking forward for a better possible outcome.

Stay healthy and be safe.

Best Regards,
Rajeeb.
(U: Marajozkee)
(Sent from my iPhone pardon the brevity) 

> On 22-Jun-2020, at 6:14 AM, Nataliia Tymkiv  wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> As Acting Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees since March
> [1] I take full responsibility for this situation. I am truly sorry for all
> the frustration this whole situation has caused to volunteers, who have
> engaged in discussions expressing their concerns, and to the staff, who
> have been working and not really sure if that is really the direction the
> Board is prepared to seriously consider, or if it is just an exercise on
> our part. As Chair of the Board, I recognize the Board owes clear
> information to the communities and guidance to the staff.
> 
> In 2017, the Board approved the 2030 Movement Strategic Direction,
> recognizing the strategic importance of growing the reach of the Wikimedia
> projects to new languages, communities, and geographies, as part of our
> global mission. In June 2018, the Board approved a Foundation Annual Plan
> that included research into the Wikimedia and Wikipedia brands to
> understand how they could be tools in helping us reach these goals.
> 
> In November 2018 [2], the staff presented research to the Board about the
> Wikipedia and Wikimedia brands. I personally, even though a relatively long
> term Wikipedian (and a bit less long term Wikimedian), was basically
> convinced by the findings that a rebranding is needed and beneficial for
> our mission and global vision, and furthermore that it should be based on
> the Wikipedia brand. The information presented there also convinced the
> Board that the team should continue their work, but as you can see from the
> minutes the Board believed that communication is crucial, but already a
> possibility for a new name for the Wikimedia Foundation was seriously
> considered [3].
> 
> And I am going to be frank here - intuitively taking the name of something
> like “Wikipedia Foundation” makes a lot of sense, whether or not it makes
> sense upon deeper consideration. But, of course, no one was planning to
> just rename the organisation, more conversations were needed. It was
> convincing enough for us (the Board) to approve the budget for this
> initiative.
> 
> The Board has received regular updates about the Brand work along the way,
> including approving continued work in the 2019 and 2020 annual plans.
> However, the Board has not yet had a very serious, frank conversation about
> what the Board will do when the work is finished, including how to balance
> feedback from many communities, and the importance of reaching new
> communities. The Board also has not yet received a final report, as the
> exploratory project was and still is ongoing.
> 
> The process itself, even though the brand project team has designed its
> process to be inclusive and transparent, has created bitterness in some
> volunteers, some of whom feel they were led on or even actively
> manipulated. I am sure there was no intent to do that. But, for instance,
> people do point to a reported KPI (key performance indicator) in the
> previous survey as an alleged attempt at deceiving either the community or
> the Board. The Board did not make its decision to support the brand project
> based on that number, nor does the clarification of that number or removal
> of that KPI influence the Board’s support for the project. Good-faith
> mistakes should not undermine trust in our colleagues’ intentions or the
> purpose of an entire process. But this “elephant in the room” feeling is
> hurting all of us - both volunteers and staff, so I acknowledge that this
> created a lot of bitterness.
> 
> I want us to take a step back and try to have an honest and constructive
> conversation on what our future work will be together. I know there is
> mistrust towards the Wikimedia Foundation acting in good faith, I also know
> the staff members feel intimidated when talking with the communities, so it
> is really difficult to have a frank dialog. We are all in this vicious
> circle - we do not trust each other, so we do not talk honestly; we do not
> talk honestly so we cannot build that trust. I truly want that to change.
> So I am going to be as direct as possible about the Board’s perspective.
> 
> The executive statement says, “A rebrand will happen. This has already been
> decided by the Board” [4]. What does it mean? The brand project was
> approved by the Board in 2018. Rebrand may include: names, logos,
> “taglines,” colours, typography, or any combination of the above. An
> outcome of the project will be a set of recommended new branding
> practices.The Board has not approved any specific recommendations yet.
> However, it is important to be

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

[Dan Szymborski]

OK, you say that you take "full responsibility" for the situation. What
exactly does "full responsibility" entail? How will the relations between
the board and the communities differ compared to the moment *before* full
responsibility was taken?

Is the board changing the degree to which it will consider community
opinions?
Is the board allowing a wider set of possibilities of new names?
Is the board granting the possibility of no change at all?
Is the board inviting additional community representatives to the board for
the limited purpose of deciding on a new name or whether to rename?
Are members of the board who are responsible for this poor communication
with the community resigning from the board?
Are members of the board who are responsible for this poor communication
with the community recusing themselves from further votes on this specific
matter?
Are you, the person who is taking "full responsibility," resigning from the
board?

As far as I see, absolutely nothing has changed. In fact, certain things
have been made even stronger against the community. Why, in a plea to
better communication is it necessary to remind the community that the board
can do whatever they want?

"However, it is important to be clear: the Board absolutely can change the
name of the Wikimedia Foundation, even to the “Wikipedia Foundation,” if it
decides."?

Imagine I'm driving with three friends in my car and we're deciding where
to go for dinner. They all say "anything but pizza." I respond, "well, I
have the keys and you're in my car, so it's pizza."

After some grumbling, I tell them that their opinions are important and
that they can pick the toppings for their pizzas. Well, not pick the
toppings, but they can choose between "pepperoni," "extra pepperoni" or
"half-pepperoni."

Naturally, there's some consternation about why I'm doing this and how
that's not exactly a choice. Then I remind them that I'm still picking the
toppings too, but their input on whether we get pepperoni, extra pepperoni,
or half-pepperoni is super-valuable and will be taken into consideration.

But I take "full responsibility" for people being unhappy with dinner
choice! Oh yeah, I absolutely get to decided whether we have pepperoni,
extra pepperoni, or half-pepperoni, because, well, I have the keys and it's
my car and it's too bad.

But they're all super appreciated and their opinions are valuable!

One thing I've learned from my years at ESPN/ABC is when I'm being fed a
line of nonsense through the medium of vanilla corporate-speak. And, I'm
sad to say, the community is being fed a massive heap of nonsense. None of
this will change until such time the movement itself is treated like a
*real* stakeholder, not simply the conveniently unpaid employees of a board
with unlimited discretion to do whatever it wants, irrespective of any
opinions of the community. Until such time as there's a state in which the
board recognizes that they're the servants of the movements, the people who
turn the steering wheel of the ship and not the captain, this state of
affairs will continue to exist.

Best,

Dan





On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 8:44 PM Nataliia Tymkiv 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> As Acting Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees since March
> [1] I take full responsibility for this situation. I am truly sorry for all
> the frustration this whole situation has caused to volunteers, who have
> engaged in discussions expressing their concerns, and to the staff, who
> have been working and not really sure if that is really the direction the
> Board is prepared to seriously consider, or if it is just an exercise on
> our part. As Chair of the Board, I recognize the Board owes clear
> information to the communities and guidance to the staff.
>
> In 2017, the Board approved the 2030 Movement Strategic Direction,
> recognizing the strategic importance of growing the reach of the Wikimedia
> projects to new languages, communities, and geographies, as part of our
> global mission. In June 2018, the Board approved a Foundation Annual Plan
> that included research into the Wikimedia and Wikipedia brands to
> understand how they could be tools in helping us reach these goals.
>
> In November 2018 [2], the staff presented research to the Board about the
> Wikipedia and Wikimedia brands. I personally, even though a relatively long
> term Wikipedian (and a bit less long term Wikimedian), was basically
> convinced by the findings that a rebranding is needed and beneficial for
> our mission and global vision, and furthermore that it should be based on
> the Wikipedia brand. The information presented there also convinced the
> Board that the team should continue their work, but as you can see from the
> minutes the Board believed that communication is crucial, but already a
> possibility for a new name for the Wikimedia Foundation was seriously
> considered [3].
>
> And I am going to be frank here - intuitively taking the name of something
> like “Wikipedia Foundat

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

[James Salsman]

What did the legal department have to say about The Wiki Foundation?
Will Ward end up with that one?

Does the executive staff and Board have a position on supporting the
.ia domain name for the Internet Archive, with the provision that
wikiped.ia is assigned to the Foundation in perpetuity?

Best regards,
Jim

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 6:54 PM Tito Dutta  wrote:
>
> Greetings,
> Thanks for working on this response. I thank you and the board for the care
> you have shown in this email. The upcoming August meeting is going to be an
> important one, as I understand from the email. We will look forward to its
> outcomes.
> There have been concerns that opinions or voices have not been heard. Other
> than the Qualtrics closed survey, opinions have been and are being shared
> in different channels such as Meta-Wiki, mailing list etc. I feel that may
> be taken into consideration, kindly, while preceding.
>
> I once again show my gratitude and sincerely thank you for taking time,
> especially on the weekends, and reaching out directly with help and
> detailed clarification.
> Thanks
> User:Titodutta
>
>
>
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 06:14, Nataliia Tymkiv  wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > As Acting Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees since March
> > [1] I take full responsibility for this situation. I am truly sorry for all
> > the frustration this whole situation has caused to volunteers, who have
> > engaged in discussions expressing their concerns, and to the staff, who
> > have been working and not really sure if that is really the direction the
> > Board is prepared to seriously consider, or if it is just an exercise on
> > our part. As Chair of the Board, I recognize the Board owes clear
> > information to the communities and guidance to the staff.
> >
> > In 2017, the Board approved the 2030 Movement Strategic Direction,
> > recognizing the strategic importance of growing the reach of the Wikimedia
> > projects to new languages, communities, and geographies, as part of our
> > global mission. In June 2018, the Board approved a Foundation Annual Plan
> > that included research into the Wikimedia and Wikipedia brands to
> > understand how they could be tools in helping us reach these goals.
> >
> > In November 2018 [2], the staff presented research to the Board about the
> > Wikipedia and Wikimedia brands. I personally, even though a relatively long
> > term Wikipedian (and a bit less long term Wikimedian), was basically
> > convinced by the findings that a rebranding is needed and beneficial for
> > our mission and global vision, and furthermore that it should be based on
> > the Wikipedia brand. The information presented there also convinced the
> > Board that the team should continue their work, but as you can see from the
> > minutes the Board believed that communication is crucial, but already a
> > possibility for a new name for the Wikimedia Foundation was seriously
> > considered [3].
> >
> > And I am going to be frank here - intuitively taking the name of something
> > like “Wikipedia Foundation” makes a lot of sense, whether or not it makes
> > sense upon deeper consideration. But, of course, no one was planning to
> > just rename the organisation, more conversations were needed. It was
> > convincing enough for us (the Board) to approve the budget for this
> > initiative.
> >
> > The Board has received regular updates about the Brand work along the way,
> > including approving continued work in the 2019 and 2020 annual plans.
> > However, the Board has not yet had a very serious, frank conversation about
> > what the Board will do when the work is finished, including how to balance
> > feedback from many communities, and the importance of reaching new
> > communities. The Board also has not yet received a final report, as the
> > exploratory project was and still is ongoing.
> >
> > The process itself, even though the brand project team has designed its
> > process to be inclusive and transparent, has created bitterness in some
> > volunteers, some of whom feel they were led on or even actively
> > manipulated. I am sure there was no intent to do that. But, for instance,
> > people do point to a reported KPI (key performance indicator) in the
> > previous survey as an alleged attempt at deceiving either the community or
> > the Board. The Board did not make its decision to support the brand project
> > based on that number, nor does the clarification of that number or removal
> > of that KPI influence the Board’s support for the project. Good-faith
> > mistakes should not undermine trust in our colleagues’ intentions or the
> > purpose of an entire process. But this “elephant in the room” feeling is
> > hurting all of us - both volunteers and staff, so I acknowledge that this
> > created a lot of bitterness.
> >
> > I want us to take a step back and try to have an honest and constructive
> > conversation on what our future work will be together. I know there is
> > mistrust towards the W

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Hi Nat,

Thank you very much for managing to put out a statement in a reasonable
timeframe, despite the harsh conditions most of all endure now. I can only
imagine how hard it has been to get to that.
Above all, thank you a lot for the sincerity and for the courage on taking
a blame that I'm certain is not (at least entirely) yours

As a very first reaction,

"*it is important to be clear: the Board absolutely can change the  name of
the Wikimedia Foundation, even to the “Wikipedia Foundation,” if it
decides.*" - Of course you (Board) can, and it will have obvious
consequences. Stating that you can do whatever you please because you can,
looks unnecessary and aggressive. I wished you've not written that there

"*the exploratory project was and still is ongoing*" - The use of the word
"exploratory" here seems to directly contradict the established timeline
[1], which is about defining a concrete proposal and approving it or not,
not about exploring options. At least, not with the involvement of the
community. Can you please clarify?

"*The Board conversation about this is planned to happen during the August
meeting.*" - I hope you recall during that conversation that part of the
current Board terminated (or should have terminated) the mandate they were
elected to.

"*What are the possible outcomes for the August Board meeting on branding?
The Board can 1) stop the project, 2) pause the work being done or 3)
continue with it.*" - It is truly a relief that you are at least
considering as an option to stop or pause the branding project. However,
from the available timeline [1], what follows in August is the final
refinement, which seems to imply that whatever comes from the much
controversial survey going on - with all certainty, one of the 3
"Wikipedia" options - will be all that will be there to be continued. There
is no space nor time for any other version that does not include
"Wikipédia". Is this correct?

"*The currently open survey [6] is intended to find the best possible
outcome if the Foundation's (!) branding*" - This seems to imply the survey
is only about the Foundation "(!)" branding, but that's not what is written
there. This is how the survey starts: " With this survey, the 2030 Movement
Brand Project team invites your feedback on proposals for *movement* names
based on our best-known brand, Wikipedia. The proposed names apply to the
*movement*, the *affiliates* and the Foundation." You say the branding only
applies to the Foundation, the survey says it's also about affiliates, and
- and this is really surprising - to the whole movement, something it's not
really in the hands of the Board to decide, as the movement, as an organic
group of many different people with different opinions, voices, cultures,
is not controlled nor defined in the least by the Board. Could you please
clarify why you say the survey only applies to the Foundation, despite what
the survey itself states?

(when I write "you" here it is the Board, obviously, not you, Nat)

Thanks again for all your dedication, courage and sincerity,
Paulo

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Timeline


Nataliia Tymkiv  escreveu no dia segunda, 22/06/2020
à(s) 01:44:

> Dear all,
>
> As Acting Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees since March
> [1] I take full responsibility for this situation. I am truly sorry for all
> the frustration this whole situation has caused to volunteers, who have
> engaged in discussions expressing their concerns, and to the staff, who
> have been working and not really sure if that is really the direction the
> Board is prepared to seriously consider, or if it is just an exercise on
> our part. As Chair of the Board, I recognize the Board owes clear
> information to the communities and guidance to the staff.
>
> In 2017, the Board approved the 2030 Movement Strategic Direction,
> recognizing the strategic importance of growing the reach of the Wikimedia
> projects to new languages, communities, and geographies, as part of our
> global mission. In June 2018, the Board approved a Foundation Annual Plan
> that included research into the Wikimedia and Wikipedia brands to
> understand how they could be tools in helping us reach these goals.
>
> In November 2018 [2], the staff presented research to the Board about the
> Wikipedia and Wikimedia brands. I personally, even though a relatively long
> term Wikipedian (and a bit less long term Wikimedian), was basically
> convinced by the findings that a rebranding is needed and beneficial for
> our mission and global vision, and furthermore that it should be based on
> the Wikipedia brand. The information presented there also convinced the
> Board that the team should continue their work, but as you can see from the
> minutes the Board believed that communication is crucial, but already a
> possibility for a new name for the Wikimedia Foundation was seriously
> considered [3].
>
> And I am going to be

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

[Tito Dutta]

Greetings,
Thanks for working on this response. I thank you and the board for the care
you have shown in this email. The upcoming August meeting is going to be an
important one, as I understand from the email. We will look forward to its
outcomes.
There have been concerns that opinions or voices have not been heard. Other
than the Qualtrics closed survey, opinions have been and are being shared
in different channels such as Meta-Wiki, mailing list etc. I feel that may
be taken into consideration, kindly, while preceding.

I once again show my gratitude and sincerely thank you for taking time,
especially on the weekends, and reaching out directly with help and
detailed clarification.
Thanks
User:Titodutta



On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 06:14, Nataliia Tymkiv  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> As Acting Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees since March
> [1] I take full responsibility for this situation. I am truly sorry for all
> the frustration this whole situation has caused to volunteers, who have
> engaged in discussions expressing their concerns, and to the staff, who
> have been working and not really sure if that is really the direction the
> Board is prepared to seriously consider, or if it is just an exercise on
> our part. As Chair of the Board, I recognize the Board owes clear
> information to the communities and guidance to the staff.
>
> In 2017, the Board approved the 2030 Movement Strategic Direction,
> recognizing the strategic importance of growing the reach of the Wikimedia
> projects to new languages, communities, and geographies, as part of our
> global mission. In June 2018, the Board approved a Foundation Annual Plan
> that included research into the Wikimedia and Wikipedia brands to
> understand how they could be tools in helping us reach these goals.
>
> In November 2018 [2], the staff presented research to the Board about the
> Wikipedia and Wikimedia brands. I personally, even though a relatively long
> term Wikipedian (and a bit less long term Wikimedian), was basically
> convinced by the findings that a rebranding is needed and beneficial for
> our mission and global vision, and furthermore that it should be based on
> the Wikipedia brand. The information presented there also convinced the
> Board that the team should continue their work, but as you can see from the
> minutes the Board believed that communication is crucial, but already a
> possibility for a new name for the Wikimedia Foundation was seriously
> considered [3].
>
> And I am going to be frank here - intuitively taking the name of something
> like “Wikipedia Foundation” makes a lot of sense, whether or not it makes
> sense upon deeper consideration. But, of course, no one was planning to
> just rename the organisation, more conversations were needed. It was
> convincing enough for us (the Board) to approve the budget for this
> initiative.
>
> The Board has received regular updates about the Brand work along the way,
> including approving continued work in the 2019 and 2020 annual plans.
> However, the Board has not yet had a very serious, frank conversation about
> what the Board will do when the work is finished, including how to balance
> feedback from many communities, and the importance of reaching new
> communities. The Board also has not yet received a final report, as the
> exploratory project was and still is ongoing.
>
> The process itself, even though the brand project team has designed its
> process to be inclusive and transparent, has created bitterness in some
> volunteers, some of whom feel they were led on or even actively
> manipulated. I am sure there was no intent to do that. But, for instance,
> people do point to a reported KPI (key performance indicator) in the
> previous survey as an alleged attempt at deceiving either the community or
> the Board. The Board did not make its decision to support the brand project
> based on that number, nor does the clarification of that number or removal
> of that KPI influence the Board’s support for the project. Good-faith
> mistakes should not undermine trust in our colleagues’ intentions or the
> purpose of an entire process. But this “elephant in the room” feeling is
> hurting all of us - both volunteers and staff, so I acknowledge that this
> created a lot of bitterness.
>
> I want us to take a step back and try to have an honest and constructive
> conversation on what our future work will be together. I know there is
> mistrust towards the Wikimedia Foundation acting in good faith, I also know
> the staff members feel intimidated when talking with the communities, so it
> is really difficult to have a frank dialog. We are all in this vicious
> circle - we do not trust each other, so we do not talk honestly; we do not
> talk honestly so we cannot build that trust. I truly want that to change.
> So I am going to be as direct as possible about the Board’s perspective.
>
> The executive statement says, “A rebrand will happen. This has already been
> decided 

[Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

[Nataliia Tymkiv]

Dear all,

As Acting Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees since March
[1] I take full responsibility for this situation. I am truly sorry for all
the frustration this whole situation has caused to volunteers, who have
engaged in discussions expressing their concerns, and to the staff, who
have been working and not really sure if that is really the direction the
Board is prepared to seriously consider, or if it is just an exercise on
our part. As Chair of the Board, I recognize the Board owes clear
information to the communities and guidance to the staff.

In 2017, the Board approved the 2030 Movement Strategic Direction,
recognizing the strategic importance of growing the reach of the Wikimedia
projects to new languages, communities, and geographies, as part of our
global mission. In June 2018, the Board approved a Foundation Annual Plan
that included research into the Wikimedia and Wikipedia brands to
understand how they could be tools in helping us reach these goals.

In November 2018 [2], the staff presented research to the Board about the
Wikipedia and Wikimedia brands. I personally, even though a relatively long
term Wikipedian (and a bit less long term Wikimedian), was basically
convinced by the findings that a rebranding is needed and beneficial for
our mission and global vision, and furthermore that it should be based on
the Wikipedia brand. The information presented there also convinced the
Board that the team should continue their work, but as you can see from the
minutes the Board believed that communication is crucial, but already a
possibility for a new name for the Wikimedia Foundation was seriously
considered [3].

And I am going to be frank here - intuitively taking the name of something
like “Wikipedia Foundation” makes a lot of sense, whether or not it makes
sense upon deeper consideration. But, of course, no one was planning to
just rename the organisation, more conversations were needed. It was
convincing enough for us (the Board) to approve the budget for this
initiative.

The Board has received regular updates about the Brand work along the way,
including approving continued work in the 2019 and 2020 annual plans.
However, the Board has not yet had a very serious, frank conversation about
what the Board will do when the work is finished, including how to balance
feedback from many communities, and the importance of reaching new
communities. The Board also has not yet received a final report, as the
exploratory project was and still is ongoing.

The process itself, even though the brand project team has designed its
process to be inclusive and transparent, has created bitterness in some
volunteers, some of whom feel they were led on or even actively
manipulated. I am sure there was no intent to do that. But, for instance,
people do point to a reported KPI (key performance indicator) in the
previous survey as an alleged attempt at deceiving either the community or
the Board. The Board did not make its decision to support the brand project
based on that number, nor does the clarification of that number or removal
of that KPI influence the Board’s support for the project. Good-faith
mistakes should not undermine trust in our colleagues’ intentions or the
purpose of an entire process. But this “elephant in the room” feeling is
hurting all of us - both volunteers and staff, so I acknowledge that this
created a lot of bitterness.

I want us to take a step back and try to have an honest and constructive
conversation on what our future work will be together. I know there is
mistrust towards the Wikimedia Foundation acting in good faith, I also know
the staff members feel intimidated when talking with the communities, so it
is really difficult to have a frank dialog. We are all in this vicious
circle - we do not trust each other, so we do not talk honestly; we do not
talk honestly so we cannot build that trust. I truly want that to change.
So I am going to be as direct as possible about the Board’s perspective.

The executive statement says, “A rebrand will happen. This has already been
decided by the Board” [4]. What does it mean? The brand project was
approved by the Board in 2018. Rebrand may include: names, logos,
“taglines,” colours, typography, or any combination of the above. An
outcome of the project will be a set of recommended new branding
practices.The Board has not approved any specific recommendations yet.
However, it is important to be clear: the Board absolutely can change the
name of the Wikimedia Foundation, even to the “Wikipedia Foundation,” if it
decides.

Has the Board made the decision to change the name of Wikimedia Foundation
yet? No, the Board has not. In 2018, the Board agreed that the name of the
Wikimedia Foundation does not help us with our strategic goals. From
2018-2020, the Board has been reviewing research and participating in the
brand process with the goal of finding a better name. The Board has not yet
made a decision to change the name to anot

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 3, 000, 000 Wikidata Infoboxes in Commons categories

[Samuel Klein]

Truly wonderful.  And the underlying tools have been useful even more
widely... thank you for sharing the milestone.

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 6:23 AM Michael Peel  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> We’ve just reached a milestone with the deployment of Wikidata Infoboxes
> in Wikimedia Commons categories: there are now over 3 million uses! [1]
> These infoboxes are completely multilingual, and they automatically expand
> as more information is added to Wikidata.
>
> (I think enwp has around 3.4 million infoboxes [2], which we’re getting
> close to - does any other Wikipedia have more?)
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Uses_of_Wikidata_Infobox
> [2]
> https://templatecount.toolforge.org/index.php?lang=en&namespace=10&name=Infobox
> ___
> 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,
> 



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
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] Scientific racism

[Fæ]

In line with Asaf's suggestion that discussion stays on-wiki, there
has been initial discussion based on unambiguous example cases of
scientific racism at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_Lives_Matter#Scientific_racism

As the incidents are on a large number of different non-English
Wikipedias, an English Wikipedia wikiproject or noticeboard would
probably be ineffective as a place to gain a consensus on actions or
cross-wiki policies.

Please join the discussion at meta, or suggest at the link above any
better venues to analyse and propose constructive ideas to ensure that
Wikipedia articles in all languages do not provide the public with
misinformation rather than current science fact or properly framed and
sourced historical accuracy.

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Happy birthday Wikimedia

[Hamish Shing Shing Chau]

Happy birthday WMF!

Sincerely,

Hamish

Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

From portable device

> On 21 Jun 2020, at 6:23 PM, Wikimedia Armenia Board 
>  wrote:
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> On behalf of Wikimedia Armenia, I congratulate all of us on the
> establishment of the Wikimedia Foundation. It carries out a very important
> mission in all corners of the world, ensuring such important activities
> that contribute to free knowledge, content creation, and dissemination. We
> are glad to be a part of the Wikimedia movement and to have our
> contribution to the promotion and development of the Wikimedia projects.
> 
> 
> “Wikimedia Armenia” NGO’s Chair of the Board
> Vahagn Piliposyan
> ___
> 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] [Brand Project] Rescheduling Naming Convention Proposal community review

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I do not translate but I do care. What I personally do is include data in a
structured manner. I do it for things I more or less care about.. It does
include awards, educated at, employed by, Ottoman history, Africa,
science.. The point in what I do is that much of these structures can be
represented in any and all languages, it is just a matter of adding labels.

People may think that I do not like Wikipedia but I do. People may think
that I do not like the WMF but I do. It is just that we could do better.
The best of us are all united in this. I also think that most of us do not
need to be told what to work on. For me the WMF is an enabler. It makes
things possible. I do not mind them to do different things from what I want
as long as I can do what I care about. I just want them to understand their
own/our bias.

As to the community, what community? Also opinions are a dime a dozen. More
relevant are the underpinning arguments and truly shelve those opinions
when we are done with these arguments.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 12:50, Dan Szymborski  wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 6:58 PM Zack McCune  wrote:
>
> > Hi GerardM,
> >
> > Indeed!
> >
> >
> > As I mentioned in my earlier message, the process will be multilingual.
> We
> > want to ensure that as many people as possible from across the movement
> > have the opportunity to participate, so we are working hard to make that
> > happen. When it comes to naming in particular, we need to understand the
> > localization opportunities and challenges of the different proposals in
> > order to arrive at a system that works globally. We are having both the
> > survey and the proposals translated into Arabic, Chinese, French, German,
> > Russian and Spanish.
>
>
> To be perfectly honest, while I'm not a professional translator, it can't
> certainly can't take that many hours of work to translate "the board is
> going to pick whatever name they want, irrespective of anything the
> communities offer" into many languages.
>
> Seriously, why all the theater? The board cared little for how the
> community felt about the initial name change proposal, code of conduct, and
> crammed the 2030 project so aggressively down the throats of the community
> that even the most deluded as to the state of affairs saw it was pointless
> to offer any additional feedback. There's still no transparency for board
> conflicts-of-interest during the Fram incident or the capricious and
> arbitrary extension of the term of community board seats.
>
> Every single person reading this knows that the board is going to do
> whatever it wants anyway, so why insult the community with the pretense
> that any opinions of the community actually matter?
> ___
> 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] 3, 000, 000 Wikidata Infoboxes in Commons categories

[Lydia Pintscher]

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 12:24 PM Michael Peel  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We’ve just reached a milestone with the deployment of Wikidata Infoboxes in 
> Wikimedia Commons categories: there are now over 3 million uses! [1] These 
> infoboxes are completely multilingual, and they automatically expand as more 
> information is added to Wikidata.
>
> (I think enwp has around 3.4 million infoboxes [2], which we’re getting close 
> to - does any other Wikipedia have more?)
>
> Thanks,
> Mike

Woh! Congratulations to you and everyone who helped make this
happen to improve Commons.
As for are there other wikis who use more:
https://wmdeanalytics.wmflabs.org/WD_percentUsageDashboard/ says
cebuano, english and swedish have more articles in the main namespace
still that make some use of Wikidata's data - not necessarily
infoboxes. Also keep in mind that the number for Commons doesn't take
into account the category namespace so the numbers are significantly
too low.


Cheers
Lydia

-- 
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
Product Manager for Wikidata

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
10963 Berlin
www.wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.

Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation proposal to call ourselves as the Wikipedia Network, Wikipedia Movement or simply Wiki

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Today I wrote a "swot analysis" [1]. What I want us to achieve is an
increased effectiveness in our aim to share the sum of all knowledge.

What I write is stark. I allow for a situation where Mr Trump remains
president. I contrast on the one hand that room for growth (think audience)
is not in English but in our other languages and that our bias for English
prevents us from realising this. This same bias is also in "Wikipedians"
claiming that we do not need additional funds because "Wikipedia" of
their claim that it does not need it. The same bias is in research, papers
not about English Wikipedia have a hard time of being published so what
data is our strategy based on?

Thanks,
  GerardM

[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2020/06/marketing-wikimedia-but-first-some-swot.html

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 12:23, Roman Bustria Jr.  wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
> There is a proposal initiated by the Wikimedia Foundation to call ourselves
> the "Wikipedia Network", "Wikipedia Movement" or simply "Wiki".
>
> I strongly suggest that the Foundation should allocate time & resources
> with the Wikimedia community fully involved in *identifying and resolving
> the real problem *that brought the idea of creating the brands department.
> These include opening communication channels like what was done in our
> strategy 2030 process to ask recommendations on how we strengthen the
> Wikimedia identity (like having online and offline promotion of the
> "Wikimedia" identity)
>
> I was puzzled how this Brand project was not fully integrated in the 2017
> and 2018-2020 Movement Strategy Process.
>
> But hey, we can do a counter proposal and offer a better and more
> acceptable solution to this.
>
>
> As shared by the Florence in the other mailing list:
>
> 1) if you are not aware of the topic, and arguments behind the
> proposition >
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
> 2) if you would like to read some feedback from the community, check
> this :
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia
> 3) to read the proposals :
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Naming_convention_proposals
> 4) to watch the presentation via youtube  :
> *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3zlBGHHHiY
> *
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sincerely,
>
> Butch Bustria
>
>
>
> -
> The information contained in this message is privileged and intended only
> for the recipients named. If the reader is not a representative of the
> intended recipient, any review, dissemination or copying of this message or
> the information it contains is prohibited. If you have received this
> message in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the
> original message and attachments.
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
> ___
> 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] [Brand Project] Rescheduling Naming Convention Proposal community review

[Dan Szymborski]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 6:58 PM Zack McCune  wrote:

> Hi GerardM,
>
> Indeed!
>
>
> As I mentioned in my earlier message, the process will be multilingual. We
> want to ensure that as many people as possible from across the movement
> have the opportunity to participate, so we are working hard to make that
> happen. When it comes to naming in particular, we need to understand the
> localization opportunities and challenges of the different proposals in
> order to arrive at a system that works globally. We are having both the
> survey and the proposals translated into Arabic, Chinese, French, German,
> Russian and Spanish.


To be perfectly honest, while I'm not a professional translator, it can't
certainly can't take that many hours of work to translate "the board is
going to pick whatever name they want, irrespective of anything the
communities offer" into many languages.

Seriously, why all the theater? The board cared little for how the
community felt about the initial name change proposal, code of conduct, and
crammed the 2030 project so aggressively down the throats of the community
that even the most deluded as to the state of affairs saw it was pointless
to offer any additional feedback. There's still no transparency for board
conflicts-of-interest during the Fram incident or the capricious and
arbitrary extension of the term of community board seats.

Every single person reading this knows that the board is going to do
whatever it wants anyway, so why insult the community with the pretense
that any opinions of the community actually matter?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation proposal to call ourselves as the Wikipedia Network, Wikipedia Movement or simply Wiki

[Roman Bustria Jr.]

Hi Folks,

There is a proposal initiated by the Wikimedia Foundation to call ourselves
the "Wikipedia Network", "Wikipedia Movement" or simply "Wiki".

I strongly suggest that the Foundation should allocate time & resources
with the Wikimedia community fully involved in *identifying and resolving
the real problem *that brought the idea of creating the brands department.
These include opening communication channels like what was done in our
strategy 2030 process to ask recommendations on how we strengthen the
Wikimedia identity (like having online and offline promotion of the
"Wikimedia" identity)

I was puzzled how this Brand project was not fully integrated in the 2017
and 2018-2020 Movement Strategy Process.

But hey, we can do a counter proposal and offer a better and more
acceptable solution to this.


As shared by the Florence in the other mailing list:

1) if you are not aware of the topic, and arguments behind the
proposition >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
2) if you would like to read some feedback from the community, check
this :
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia
3) to read the proposals :
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Naming_convention_proposals
4) to watch the presentation via youtube  :
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3zlBGHHHiY
*






-- 
Sincerely,

Butch Bustria


-
The information contained in this message is privileged and intended only
for the recipients named. If the reader is not a representative of the
intended recipient, any review, dissemination or copying of this message or
the information it contains is prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the
original message and attachments.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.
___
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] 3,000,000 Wikidata Infoboxes in Commons categories

[Michael Peel]

Hi all,

We’ve just reached a milestone with the deployment of Wikidata Infoboxes in 
Wikimedia Commons categories: there are now over 3 million uses! [1] These 
infoboxes are completely multilingual, and they automatically expand as more 
information is added to Wikidata.

(I think enwp has around 3.4 million infoboxes [2], which we’re getting close 
to - does any other Wikipedia have more?)

Thanks,
Mike

[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Uses_of_Wikidata_Infobox
[2] 
https://templatecount.toolforge.org/index.php?lang=en&namespace=10&name=Infobox
___
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] Happy birthday Wikimedia

[Wikimedia Armenia Board]

Dear colleagues,

On behalf of Wikimedia Armenia, I congratulate all of us on the
establishment of the Wikimedia Foundation. It carries out a very important
mission in all corners of the world, ensuring such important activities
that contribute to free knowledge, content creation, and dissemination. We
are glad to be a part of the Wikimedia movement and to have our
contribution to the promotion and development of the Wikimedia projects.


“Wikimedia Armenia” NGO’s Chair of the Board
Vahagn Piliposyan
___
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,