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

[ferdinando traversa]

I’m sorry but things can’t go like you would like to intend giving this ironic 
inversion because we don’t have possibility to decide anything. We’re only 
asking to listen all the community to do a very very important decision like 
this.



Un abbraccio,


Ferdinando





On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 PM , Mike Peel wrote:
>  
>  
> > On 12 Sep 2019, at 17:47, MZMcBridewrote:
> >  
> > Andrew Lih wrote:
> > > Folks, it's not clear this email thread is going to register at all as
> > > feedback for this process.
> >  
> > Hi.
> >  
> > I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but my sense is that
> > a few people within Wikimedia Foundation Inc. have already decided on an
> > outcome and are seeking "support" and "feedback" to legitimize and
> > validate that predetermined decision.
>  
> Hi.
>  
> I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but my sense is that
> a few people on this mailing list have already decided on an
> outcome and are seeking “oppose" and "feedback" to legitimize and
> validate that predetermined decision.
>  
> Mike
> (Seriously - please give more constructive feedback, and engage in 
> conversation, everyone's working towards the same goals here.)
> ___
> 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

[ferdinando traversa]

I left a message, please write you too so we can stop this (I listen only to 
channels that will say that I’m right lalalalaalalla… this seems the behavior 
of WMF):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review/results#RFC

Regards,


Ferdinando





On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 PM , Andrew Lih wrote:
> Folks, it's not clear this email thread is going to register at all as
> feedback for this process.
>  
> The only recognized feedback mechanisms according to the original mail are
> the following:
>  
> 1. Wikimedia Space group - https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network
> Currently 13 members
>  
> 2.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review
> No new conversations
>  
> 3.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review/results
> A dialogue that has been started to discuss the problems of the KPIs and
> metrics.
>  
> I'd highly suggest if you want to make your feedback count, you go to these
> venues.
>  
> -Andrew
>  
>  
>  
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 8:32 PM Ferdinando Traversa
> wrote:
>  
> > It’ll be a very very important RFC. More than elections, it’s about all
> > global identity.
> > CentralNotice is appropriate.
> >  
> > Ferdinando
> >  
> > > Il giorno 7 set 2019, alle ore 22:06, David Gerard
> > ha scritto:
> > >  
> > > 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 Gerardwrote:
> > > > >  
> > > > > 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
> > > > > > 

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

[Dan Szymborski]

This is largely my feeling as well. If you look at one of Andrew's links:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review/brainstorm


You'll see some quite vigorous opposition to the name change and robust
support for explicitly not changing the name.

Fast-forward more than six months and now 20% of people have to actively
oppose something or it's supported, even though there is no way that you'll
get a response rate on *anything* *ever* to be 20% on a large email list.

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:48 PM MZMcBride  wrote:

> Andrew Lih wrote:
> >Folks, it's not clear this email thread is going to register at all as
> >feedback for this process.
>
> Hi.
>
> I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but my sense is that
> a few people within Wikimedia Foundation Inc. have already decided on an
> outcome and are seeking "support" and "feedback" to legitimize and
> validate that predetermined decision.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
___
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

[Mike Peel]

> On 13 Sep 2019, at 06:03, MZMcBride  wrote:
> 
> Mike Peel wrote:
>> I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but my sense is that
>> a few people on this mailing list have already decided on an
>> outcome and are seeking “oppose" and "feedback" to legitimize and
>> validate that predetermined decision.
>> 
>> Mike
>> (Seriously - please give more constructive feedback, and engage in
>> conversation, everyone's working towards the same goals here.)
> 
> I'm genuinely curious what you think a "Director of Brand" does. Other
> than leading a rebranding effort, what does that role entail?
> 
> We're talking about the same organization that hired search engine
> optimization consultants. For Wikipedia, a site with notoriously
> incredible search engine results page placement. And even among the sleazy
> underbelly of search engine optimization consultants, Wikimedia Foundation
> Inc. partnered with a particularly bad group.
> 
> We're also talking about the same organization that unilaterally changed
> its logo in a dramatic "fade to black".
> 
> Operating in good faith only works bidirectionally. When people are
> spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and making bad decisions without
> community consultation, much less community endorsement, it becomes clear
> that at least one party is no longer acting in good faith.
> 
> So, no, I don't think everyone is working toward the same goals here.
> Should we have a conversation about the neglected sister projects?
> Absolutely. This isn't it.

My “engage in conversation” comment was pointed in both directions - hopefully 
Wikimedians at the WMF will also comment on this thread? On Zack’s title, he 
describes his role as "I work to raise awareness and usage of Wikimedia 
projects around the world, expanding the global reach of free knowledge.” 
(https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ZMcCune_(WMF) 
 ).

Thanks,
Mike
___
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

[MZMcBride]

Mike Peel wrote:
>I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but my sense is that
>a few people on this mailing list have already decided on an
>outcome and are seeking “oppose" and "feedback" to legitimize and
>validate that predetermined decision.
>
>Mike
>(Seriously - please give more constructive feedback, and engage in
>conversation, everyone's working towards the same goals here.)

I'm genuinely curious what you think a "Director of Brand" does. Other
than leading a rebranding effort, what does that role entail?

We're talking about the same organization that hired search engine
optimization consultants. For Wikipedia, a site with notoriously
incredible search engine results page placement. And even among the sleazy
underbelly of search engine optimization consultants, Wikimedia Foundation
Inc. partnered with a particularly bad group.

We're also talking about the same organization that unilaterally changed
its logo in a dramatic "fade to black".

Operating in good faith only works bidirectionally. When people are
spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and making bad decisions without
community consultation, much less community endorsement, it becomes clear
that at least one party is no longer acting in good faith.

So, no, I don't think everyone is working toward the same goals here.
Should we have a conversation about the neglected sister projects?
Absolutely. This isn't it.

MZMcBride



___
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

[Andrew Lih]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:42 PM Ad Huikeshoven  wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>
> There has already been an extensive consultation in the first half year of
> 2019. Zack presented the outcome to the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia
> Foundation August 14th in Stockholm. Het got a go for a next phase. The
> current dialogue is about implementation details, as far as I understand
> the status of the current process.
>

Yes, but perhaps what folks may miss is that there is a fundamental
disconnect between the numbers as presented earlier in this thread versus
what has been seen in various forums and discussions.

To wit: one figure that is less than 1% and one that is much much greater
than 50%, both of which are trying to measure the same sentiment. That
should give us all pause about how legitimate the next steps may be,
regardless of which side one is on.

On-wiki discussion of this:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACommunications%2FWikimedia_brands%2F2030_research_and_planning%2Fcommunity_review%2Fresults=revision=19372447=19372300

-Andrew
___
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

[Aron Manning]

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 20:27, Mike Peel  wrote:

> > Hi.
> >
> > I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but my sense is
> that
> > a few people within Wikimedia Foundation Inc. have already decided on an
> > outcome and are seeking "support" and "feedback" to legitimize and
> > validate that predetermined decision.
>
> Hi.
>
> I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but my sense is that
> a few people on this mailing list have already decided on an
> outcome and are seeking “oppose" and "feedback" to legitimize and
> validate that predetermined decision.
>
> Mike
> (Seriously - please give more constructive feedback, and engage in
> conversation, everyone's working towards the same goals here.)
>

Yes. If we could just put aside discussing people ad hominem, and instead
focus on *reasoning*,  also known as constructive feedback / criticism.
According to the original email that should happen on meta
,
or on wikimedia space

.

Aron
___
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

[Ad Huikeshoven]

Hi Andrew,

There has already been an extensive consultation in the first half year of
2019. Zack presented the outcome to the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia
Foundation August 14th in Stockholm. Het got a go for a next phase. The
current dialogue is about implementation details, as far as I understand
the status of the current process.

Regards,

Ad

Op do 12 sep. 2019 17:14 schreef Andrew Lih :

> Folks, it's not clear this email thread is going to register at all as
> feedback for this process.
>
> The only recognized feedback mechanisms according to the original mail are
> the following:
>
> 1. Wikimedia Space group -
> https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network
> Currently 13 members
>
> 2.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review
> No new conversations
>
> 3.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review/results
> A dialogue that has been started to discuss the problems of the KPIs and
> metrics.
>
> I'd highly suggest if you want to make your feedback count, you go to these
> venues.
>
> -Andrew
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 8:32 PM Ferdinando Traversa <
> ferdi.trave...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > It’ll be a very very important RFC. More than elections, it’s about all
> > global identity.
> > CentralNotice is appropriate.
> >
> > Ferdinando
> >
> > > Il giorno 7 set 2019, alle ore 22:06, David Gerard 
> > ha scritto:
> > >
> > > 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 

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

[Mike Peel]

> On 12 Sep 2019, at 17:47, MZMcBride  wrote:
> 
> Andrew Lih wrote:
>> Folks, it's not clear this email thread is going to register at all as
>> feedback for this process.
> 
> Hi.
> 
> I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but my sense is that
> a few people within Wikimedia Foundation Inc. have already decided on an
> outcome and are seeking "support" and "feedback" to legitimize and
> validate that predetermined decision.

Hi.

I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but my sense is that
a few people on this mailing list have already decided on an
outcome and are seeking “oppose" and "feedback" to legitimize and
validate that predetermined decision.

Mike
(Seriously - please give more constructive feedback, and engage in 
conversation, everyone's working towards the same goals here.)
___
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

[MZMcBride]

Andrew Lih wrote:
>Folks, it's not clear this email thread is going to register at all as
>feedback for this process.

Hi.

I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but my sense is that
a few people within Wikimedia Foundation Inc. have already decided on an
outcome and are seeking "support" and "feedback" to legitimize and
validate that predetermined decision.

MZMcBride



___
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

[Andrew Lih]

Folks, it's not clear this email thread is going to register at all as
feedback for this process.

The only recognized feedback mechanisms according to the original mail are
the following:

1. Wikimedia Space group - https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network
Currently 13 members

2.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review
No new conversations

3.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review/results
A dialogue that has been started to discuss the problems of the KPIs and
metrics.

I'd highly suggest if you want to make your feedback count, you go to these
venues.

-Andrew



On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 8:32 PM Ferdinando Traversa 
wrote:

> It’ll be a very very important RFC. More than elections, it’s about all
> global identity.
> CentralNotice is appropriate.
>
> Ferdinando
>
> > Il giorno 7 set 2019, alle ore 22:06, David Gerard 
> ha scritto:
> >
> > 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
> >>> 

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

[Ferdinando Traversa]

It’ll be a very very important RFC. More than elections, it’s about all global 
identity.
CentralNotice is appropriate.

Ferdinando

> Il giorno 7 set 2019, alle ore 22:06, David Gerard  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> 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 feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for
>>> precisely
>> what
>>> branding must do to be 

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

[Adrian Raddatz]

Their approach hasn't changed. There are maybe just more ongoing projects
than there were in the past. But yes, it can't be fun for anyone involved.

I briefly discussed some of this above, but I'll list a few options that
the WMF could take to make this process less consistently bad:
1. Determine benefits of any project to the editing and reading community.
If there are none, that may be fine, but consider balancing it out with a
concurrent project that is providing benefit to those communities. *Frame
any project in terms of the desired benefits*.
2. Find allies and adopt a joint approach. If you are running projects that
will benefit some part of the editing and reading community, find people
who would benefit, involve them in the entire project lifecycle, and
utilize them in communications and consultations to move the conversation
away from community vs. WMF.
3. Engage much earlier than is currently done. Rather than always bringing
"solutions" to the community (that the community invariably doesn't like),
bring problems to the community and ask how these problems could be solved.
You can even structure the problem statement and questions in a way that
will get at your ideal solution. Again though, it depends on whether this
is actually a problem for the editing/reading communities.
4. Do more for your primary stakeholders! Every area of the projects has
outstanding technical and social issues that the communities want solved
and that haven't been worked on for years. In my area of interest, we have
been asking for better CAPTCHAs for years. Dial back the grants program a
bit and use the money to provide services for the communities that you are
supposed to be serving. If you do this, then the community appetite to
accept some WMF-initiated changes will be greater once we think that you
are actually on our side.
5. Bring the community, or select community members, into project
governance structures. Make a steering committee, host elections for
community seats, use a combination appointed/elected model, etc for major
program areas. This is what the community-selected board seats should do,
except the organization is too large for the board to function in that way.

Adrian Raddatz


On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 7:51 AM Paulo Santos Perneta 
wrote:

> I only started following WMF stuff more closely around 2 years ago, but I
> don't remember it being this permanent state of crisis as it is now, with
> an ever increasing - now, apparently at an accelerating pace too -
> detachment from the onwiki communities.
> This is tiresome and distracting for those of us who are volunteers at the
> Wikimedia projects, but it's certainly painful too for the WMF staff.
>
> What's going on with the WMF?
>
> Paulo
>
> Pine W  escreveu no dia segunda, 9/09/2019 à(s)
> 07:59:
>
> > It crosses my mind that I would think that some of the WMF office staff
> > would also be getting tired of crisis, conflict, and unwelcome surprises.
> > These types of problems are unlikely to ever be fully prevented, but I
> > would think that the parade of difficulties in the past few months would
> > also be testing the patience of at least some people inside of WMF who
> > might like to not have a new earthquake to deal with on what seems like a
> > biweekly basis.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 8, 2019, 17:59 Yair Rand  wrote:
> >
> > > The broad proposal was clearly rejected. The community has not
> authorized
> > > the Wikimedia Foundation to let any organization speak under
> Wikipedia's
> > > name. If a formal RfC is to be held to make a final decision (perhaps
> > with
> > > the question subdivided, per Pine), I recommend delaying it for a while
> > so
> > > we might have a chance for some respite from permanent crisis mode.
> > >
> > > The summary, in my opinion, is not adequate, and skips many of the most
> > > significant arguments. (The talk page itself skips some, after the WMF
> > had
> > > a large portion of the talk page moved to a different page, including a
> > > string of "strong oppose"s. Those who participated in the removed
> > sections
> > > were not counted in the WMF's count, for some reason.)
> > >
> > > I do not understand what is going on within the Foundation regarding
> > KPIs,
> > > but I get the impression that groups were required to establish metrics
> > of
> > > some kind, without any actual oversight on how those metrics would
> work.
> > > Thus, we get things like the branding proposal's "anything less than
> 1800
> > > users posting statements in opposition will be considered strong
> support,
> > > 1800-2700 will be considered substantial support, 2700-3600 opposed
> will
> > be
> > > considered moderate support". Similar things have been happening
> > elsewhere,
> > > eg, for the WMF's "Space" project. (Speaking of which, holding a
> > discussion
> > > on a private off-wiki forum is not a valid method of community decision
> > > making, for 

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

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

I only started following WMF stuff more closely around 2 years ago, but I
don't remember it being this permanent state of crisis as it is now, with
an ever increasing - now, apparently at an accelerating pace too -
detachment from the onwiki communities.
This is tiresome and distracting for those of us who are volunteers at the
Wikimedia projects, but it's certainly painful too for the WMF staff.

What's going on with the WMF?

Paulo

Pine W  escreveu no dia segunda, 9/09/2019 à(s) 07:59:

> It crosses my mind that I would think that some of the WMF office staff
> would also be getting tired of crisis, conflict, and unwelcome surprises.
> These types of problems are unlikely to ever be fully prevented, but I
> would think that the parade of difficulties in the past few months would
> also be testing the patience of at least some people inside of WMF who
> might like to not have a new earthquake to deal with on what seems like a
> biweekly basis.
>
> Pine
>
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 8, 2019, 17:59 Yair Rand  wrote:
>
> > The broad proposal was clearly rejected. The community has not authorized
> > the Wikimedia Foundation to let any organization speak under Wikipedia's
> > name. If a formal RfC is to be held to make a final decision (perhaps
> with
> > the question subdivided, per Pine), I recommend delaying it for a while
> so
> > we might have a chance for some respite from permanent crisis mode.
> >
> > The summary, in my opinion, is not adequate, and skips many of the most
> > significant arguments. (The talk page itself skips some, after the WMF
> had
> > a large portion of the talk page moved to a different page, including a
> > string of "strong oppose"s. Those who participated in the removed
> sections
> > were not counted in the WMF's count, for some reason.)
> >
> > I do not understand what is going on within the Foundation regarding
> KPIs,
> > but I get the impression that groups were required to establish metrics
> of
> > some kind, without any actual oversight on how those metrics would work.
> > Thus, we get things like the branding proposal's "anything less than 1800
> > users posting statements in opposition will be considered strong support,
> > 1800-2700 will be considered substantial support, 2700-3600 opposed will
> be
> > considered moderate support". Similar things have been happening
> elsewhere,
> > eg, for the WMF's "Space" project. (Speaking of which, holding a
> discussion
> > on a private off-wiki forum is not a valid method of community decision
> > making, for branding or otherwise.)
> >
> > -- Yair Rand
> >
> >
> >
> > ‫בתאריך שבת, 7 בספט׳ 2019 ב-20:54 מאת ‪Pine W‬‏ <‪wiki.p...@gmail.com
> ‬‏>:‬
> >
> > >  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
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review/results
> > > >
> > > 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

[Pine W]

It crosses my mind that I would think that some of the WMF office staff
would also be getting tired of crisis, conflict, and unwelcome surprises.
These types of problems are unlikely to ever be fully prevented, but I
would think that the parade of difficulties in the past few months would
also be testing the patience of at least some people inside of WMF who
might like to not have a new earthquake to deal with on what seems like a
biweekly basis.

Pine

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




On Sun, Sep 8, 2019, 17:59 Yair Rand  wrote:

> The broad proposal was clearly rejected. The community has not authorized
> the Wikimedia Foundation to let any organization speak under Wikipedia's
> name. If a formal RfC is to be held to make a final decision (perhaps with
> the question subdivided, per Pine), I recommend delaying it for a while so
> we might have a chance for some respite from permanent crisis mode.
>
> The summary, in my opinion, is not adequate, and skips many of the most
> significant arguments. (The talk page itself skips some, after the WMF had
> a large portion of the talk page moved to a different page, including a
> string of "strong oppose"s. Those who participated in the removed sections
> were not counted in the WMF's count, for some reason.)
>
> I do not understand what is going on within the Foundation regarding KPIs,
> but I get the impression that groups were required to establish metrics of
> some kind, without any actual oversight on how those metrics would work.
> Thus, we get things like the branding proposal's "anything less than 1800
> users posting statements in opposition will be considered strong support,
> 1800-2700 will be considered substantial support, 2700-3600 opposed will be
> considered moderate support". Similar things have been happening elsewhere,
> eg, for the WMF's "Space" project. (Speaking of which, holding a discussion
> on a private off-wiki forum is not a valid method of community decision
> making, for branding or otherwise.)
>
> -- Yair Rand
>
>
>
> ‫בתאריך שבת, 7 בספט׳ 2019 ב-20:54 מאת ‪Pine W‬‏ <‪wiki.p...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬
>
> >  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
> > <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review/results
> > >
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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: 

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

[Yair Rand]

The broad proposal was clearly rejected. The community has not authorized
the Wikimedia Foundation to let any organization speak under Wikipedia's
name. If a formal RfC is to be held to make a final decision (perhaps with
the question subdivided, per Pine), I recommend delaying it for a while so
we might have a chance for some respite from permanent crisis mode.

The summary, in my opinion, is not adequate, and skips many of the most
significant arguments. (The talk page itself skips some, after the WMF had
a large portion of the talk page moved to a different page, including a
string of "strong oppose"s. Those who participated in the removed sections
were not counted in the WMF's count, for some reason.)

I do not understand what is going on within the Foundation regarding KPIs,
but I get the impression that groups were required to establish metrics of
some kind, without any actual oversight on how those metrics would work.
Thus, we get things like the branding proposal's "anything less than 1800
users posting statements in opposition will be considered strong support,
1800-2700 will be considered substantial support, 2700-3600 opposed will be
considered moderate support". Similar things have been happening elsewhere,
eg, for the WMF's "Space" project. (Speaking of which, holding a discussion
on a private off-wiki forum is not a valid method of community decision
making, for branding or otherwise.)

-- Yair Rand



‫בתאריך שבת, 7 בספט׳ 2019 ב-20:54 מאת ‪Pine W‬‏ <‪wiki.p...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬

>  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
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review/results
> >
> 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,
> 
___
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

[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
> > > > > >
> > > > > 

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] 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, 

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

[Benjamin Ikuta]

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



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

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

[Kiril Simeonovski]

Hi all,

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

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

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

Best regards,
Kiril

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

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

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

[Adrian Raddatz]

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

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

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

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

Adrian Raddatz


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

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

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

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

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



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

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

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

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

Regards

Isaac

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

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

[Isaac Olatunde]

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

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

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

Regards

Isaac

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

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

[Strainu]

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

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



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


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

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



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


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

Strainu

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

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

[Adrian Raddatz]

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

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

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

Adrian Raddatz


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

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

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

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

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

It's one after another, and never stops.

Best,
Paulo

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

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

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

[Yaroslav Blanter]

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

Cheers
Yaroslav

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

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

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

[Fæ]

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

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

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

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

Thanks,
Fae

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

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

[Zack McCune]

Hi Pine -

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

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

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

yours,

- Zack

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



Measure community appetite

for change

20% of affiliates support

Less than 20% of informed community oppose

✓ 38% of reviewing affiliates support

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

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

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

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

[Diane Ranville]

Hi,

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

-speaking in my own name here-

Diane

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

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

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

[Pine W]

Hello Zack,

Thank you for the report on Meta.

I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is considerable
support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our
movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to omit is that,
according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable opposition to
the rebranding proposal.


Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having "considerable
support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what appears to be
considerable opposition?


Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta displays that
measure community and affiliate support or opposition regarding the
rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and two of the
three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was using those
measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition regarding the RfC,
I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as declined.

Pine

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



On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune  wrote:

> *Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design process for
> movement branding.  Please join the in-depth discussion group, or watch for
> updates on Meta-Wiki.
>
>
> Hello all,
>
> After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of affiliates,
> several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am pleased
> to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand strategy
> [1].
>
> From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors and
> 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
>
>1.
>
>Reducing confusion
>2.
>
>Protecting reputation
>3.
>
>Supporting sister projects
>4.
>
>Addressing (legal, governmental) risks
>5.
>
>Supporting movement growth
>6.
>
>The process of change
>
> Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You will see
> examples of comments within each section, along with a rough indication of
> how many of the comments that we received were related to each theme.
>
> The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that across our wide
> movement’s experience, different points of view are common (and a sign of
> health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created “polarity maps”
> which are used to help visualize how different arguments coexist in tension
> with each other.
>
> Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very thoughtful and
> useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s branding
> successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for assessing
> branding systems.
>
> == Thanks ==
>
> I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia Education
> Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold discussions during
> their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues Elena Lappen,
> Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive parts of this
> consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of affiliates
> commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering your
> perspectives and insights.
>
>
> == Next steps and staying involved ==
>
> There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general appetite
> to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we believe that
> critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for precisely what
> branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have shared these
> insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of Trustees, who
> approved continuing these efforts.
>
> Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on formal brand
> naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will use “Wikipedia”
> as the central reference point. The resulting system will be OPT-IN for
> affiliates.
>
> This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a group of
> volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during this
> consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and we invite you
> to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to host this
> discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid discussions and
> room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you do not want to
> commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be happening
> 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
>

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

[Zack McCune]

*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 
___
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,