Gerard,
I'm not advocating ignoring anyone. Decisions have to be made and they
will be made by the Foundation. The best decisions will be made when they
consult the community. It may be that the decision that they eventually
take will be for a course of action supported by the majority, or it m
Jennifer,
So you did not say it because you did not do the researce but when a
minority of our community does not identify themselves as "Wikipedians" it
does not matter. Sorry, but that is EXACTLY what I said. What you indicate
is that a minority may be ignored. Why else do "the research" but to
p
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 7:33 PM James Heilman wrote:
> With respect to popularity per Alexa:
>
> Wikipedia is 5th
> Wikimedia is 276 (includes both Commons and Wikispecies)
> Wiktionary is 432
> Wikibooks is 1,892
> Wikisource is 2,790
> Wikiquote is 3,953
> Wikidata is 8,848
> Wikiversity is 9,3
James
Readership and writership -- to coin a phrase -- aren't the same thing.
English-language Wikipedia may be the fifth-most visited website in the
world, but it has major problems, for example, over a million un- or
badly-referenced articles, as revealed in a recent WMF Research paper and
blogp
With respect to popularity per Alexa:
Wikipedia is 5th
Wikimedia is 276 (includes both Commons and Wikispecies)
Wiktionary is 432
Wikibooks is 1,892
Wikisource is 2,790
Wikiquote is 3,953
Wikidata is 8,848
Wikiversity is 9,372 (includes Wiki Journals)
Wikivoyage is 14,850
Wikinews is 60,829
There
Gerard
>
> So it is ok to deny the minority that insists they are not?
>
> I didn't say that at all. I merely suggest that the reality is that the
majority of volunteers take a certain view of themselves (that they are
Wikpedians first and foremost ), and that the ones who take a different
view o
Hoi,
So it is ok to deny the minority that insists they are not?
Thanks,
GerardM
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 08:32, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > You can't be a member of "The Wikipedia Movement".
> >
> >
> I suggest that this claimed impossibility is
Good arguments,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
FT2
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 4:54 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
I agree with both views
I don't think we get to make grand claims about what "the vast majority"
think, without some good basis for it.
More pragmatically, I suspect that most editors think of themselves as
Wikipedia/other project *editors*. But those who truly think of themselves
as members of a *movement* - our GLAM v
>
>
> You can't be a member of "The Wikipedia Movement".
>
>
I suggest that this claimed impossibility is in fact exactly what the vast
majority of the volunteers believe that they are.
JPS
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikim
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 19:54, Pharos wrote:
> One thing that this corporate rebranding after our most popular product
> would erase is the "Wikimedia movement" - a social movement that is the
> leading modern manifestation of the Free Culture movement that attracted me
> as a member of Student Fo
I agree with both views expressed (the desirability of, and concerns about,
the Foundation name/brand), and I suggest a solution that might work for
both problems.
One the one hand, Wikimedia vs Wikipedia is confusing and Wikimedia is
little recognized. I'm not actually sure if that's a problem, b
I concur with Phoebe and others that the time for such a change was 10 or
15 years ago, and would not be appropriate or productive now.
One thing that this corporate rebranding after our most popular product
would erase is the "Wikimedia movement" - a social movement that is the
leading modern man
Hi all,
I'll try to be brief. At an intuitive level I'm against implementing this
particular proposal: Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather
than Wikimedia. After reading this thread and having conversations related
to the subject with others this are my thoughts around it:
- Timing
When I joined Wikimedia in 2009 I also tried WikiNews, which looked yet
another fantastic Wikimedia project. I soon realized, however, that it was
just a repeater of CC-BY sources of news, with very residual (if any)
proper production. When an handcrafted news-piece I've made was merged with
one of
Andrew Lih provided a couple of days ago a link to his excellent analysis
of ten years ago, but in short - Wikinews has a very different nature that
all other Wikimedia projects. Wikipedia, or say Wikivoyage or Commons are
incremental - you can add a paragraph of text or an image, walk away, come
b
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:49 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wouldn't describe Wikinews as a success case, though.
>
> Paulo
>
Compared to Wikitribune it is! But more importantly, if Wikinews is not
thriving, then why not? Does it lack resources? What could or sho
I concur with Phoebe and Philippe as well. I find this branding proposal
feels very dated; something that might have had currency several years ago,
but not really an advantage in the coming 10-15 years. There aren't a lot
of organizations that change their names to reflect their most prominent
b
I wouldn't describe Wikinews as a success case, though.
Paulo
Jennifer Pryor-Summers escreveu no dia
segunda, 15/04/2019 à(s) 19:05:
> Luiz
>
> >
> > > If the true drivers behind this change are because WMF senior
> > > management believe that the WMF is a competitor for Facebook or
> > > YouTu
Luiz
>
> > If the true drivers behind this change are because WMF senior
> > management believe that the WMF is a competitor for Facebook or
> > YouTube (as was in one of the marketing presentations), then the
> > problem is their perception of the mission of the WMF, not the name
> > "Wikimedia".
Em dom, 14 de abr de 2019 09:54, Fæ escreveu:
> (...)
> If the true drivers behind this change are because WMF senior
> management believe that the WMF is a competitor for Facebook or
> YouTube (as was in one of the marketing presentations), then the
> problem is their perception of the mission o
mers
> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2019 7:10 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
>
> Fæ
>
> I don't think that the chapters are in a position to dictate to the
> Foundation in the way you suggest. To
: Sunday, April 14, 2019 7:10 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
Fæ
I don't think that the chapters are in a position to dictate to the
Foundation in the way you suggest. To take the UK chapter, with you are
probably most fam
Fæ
I don't think that the chapters are in a position to dictate to the
Foundation in the way you suggest. To take the UK chapter, with you are
probably most familiar, last year some 42% of its income came as a block
grant from the WMF, the figures for the preceding years being 54% and 47%.
When h
As usual, Phoebe states very eloquently what I've been struggling to put
into words myself. And like she, I would have been excited about this
brand change several years ago. But we weren't ready / missed / didn't see
the need for that opportunity then. I think that moment has passed. I'm
not s
Most Chapters and many other Affiliates are registered legal
organizations. In some cases, like the one you quote, the organization
is a registered charity and has several years of submitting accounts
and reports as that entity.
Names can be changed but this would be a legally meaningful decision
Hoi,
Yes there is a noticeable difference. Costs for changing websites,
stationary and the like are not budgeted for. Given that budgets do not
account for such nonsense it is not an "easy" test. It is also not a test
because when the test proves negative you double the cost.
Thanks,
GerardM
Maybe there’s an easy way to just test this? A chapter could start calling
itself e.g. Wikipedia UK in its comms for a year and see if there’s any
noticeable difference?
Sent from my iPhone
> On 14 Apr 2019, at 01:47, phoebe ayers wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rebecca O'Neill
>
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rebecca O'Neill
wrote:
> I agree Galder!
>
> I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw people
> to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We have
> some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting
>
In our community (Swedish) we embrace Wikidata wholeheartedly and we
have found solution to take care of vandalism. Literialist, show changes
on Wikidata on Wikipedia etc.
I believe it is more an attitude issue then a technical one.
I agree with earlier comments that English Wikipedia is not e
To be honest, Wikidata does have serious vandalism issues which have not
yet been solved. It is unlikely the English Wikipedia will have a more
close integration with Wikidata until they have been solved. For the
record, I am administrator on both projects.
Cheers
Yaroslav
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at
Hoi,
When I worked on Ottoman history in Wikidata (I will get back to it again)
Catalan was one of the best resources. Thank you :) If you want me to I can
share my work/your work on your wikipedia.
Thanks,
GerardM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM#Ottoman_Turkey
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019
I agree Galder!
I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw people
to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We have
some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting
involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are
Well, that Wikidata problem happens on English Wikipedia. Some Wikipedias
(Basque, Catalan, even French) are embracing Wikidata extensively.
And there's the branding issue. Maybe Wikipedia is not THE future.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
Hoi,
The basic assumption of Wikipedia is the article. When we are truly to
reach out and take a next step, it has to be more than Wikipedia, more than
obsessing with articles. People are not looking for articles, they are
looking for information on subjects. Information on subjects may be
delivere
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 12:42 PM phoebe ayers wrote:
>
>
> Dear all,
> I haven't weighed in before. But it seems to me there's a simple question
> underlying all of this: do we actually want, or need, to increase public
> awareness of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia chapters/affiliates (as
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:14 PM Zack McCune wrote:
> :: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to ensure
> we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as possible. ::
>
> Hi all,
>
> We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community review on
On Sat., Apr. 13, 2019, 2:27 a.m. Gerard Meijssen, <
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Wikipedia is indeed clearly the core global brand. The notion that
> Wikidata will "never match Wikipedia whatever its future success" is a sad
> argument.
>
You misunderstand me. I do not mean in importanc
Hoi,
Thank you for your well argued point of view. I followed the statistics as
provided by Erik Zachte for a long time and the trend was slowly but surely
where based on the statistics of Wikipedia alone English Wikipedia traffic
moved slowly but surely from over fifty to under fifty percent. Then
Seeing this "brand" discussion eat up all the limited available unpaid
volunteer oxygen on wikimedia-l makes me sad.
If the WMF's biggest strategy topic this year is to enter into navel
gazing about its brand, then the WMF looks like it has a problem with
setting meaningful work for its senior man
> We know our statistics and English Wikipedia is not 50% of our traffic. It
> is where over 50% of our resources are spend.
>
Do we?
Based on what?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines a
Hoi,
Wikipedia is indeed clearly the core global brand. The notion that Wikidata
will "never match Wikipedia whatever its future success" is a sad argument.
Use some hindsight and compare Wikipedia and its impact with Wikidata at
the same age, do the same for Commons. It is also a useless argument
Wikipedia is clearly the core global brand.
It also has a prominence in the history of the Web and internetworked
society that Wikidata, whatever its future success, will never match.
Internally, as all have noted, the dilemma is that it is associated with
the focus and policies of one project.
Responses below:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:07 PM Strainu wrote:
>
> I would argue that, on the contrary, for the outside word we were less
> Wikipedia 10 years ago. Around that time there was still hope that
> Wikibooks or Wikinews could still be successful, at least in some
> languages. New lan
Have I missed something, or this discussion is nowhere to be seen at any of
the Village Pumps of the Portuguese Wikipedia?
Also, is there any point in discussing this onwiki, as it was in Commons by
part of the community[1], if apparently there is not any following by the
people in charge of this p
; a new project based entirely on videos with free content from Wikipedia and
>> Commons, that could be the best project by 2030... and we call it
>> Wikivideo. Would still be a good idea to be called Wikivideo, a project by
>> the Wikipedia Foundation, or would we start thinking on c
> Commons, that could be the best project by 2030... and we call it
> > Wikivideo. Would still be a good idea to be called Wikivideo, a project by
> > the Wikipedia Foundation, or would we start thinking on calling ourselves
> > The Wikivideo Foundation? I think that being Wikimedia gi
OpenWiki would be an even stranger and less known brand!
___
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.o
The OpenWiki Foundation?
Michael
> On 10 Apr 2019, at 21:51, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Andrew for the insights. I agree with most of what you have proposed.
>
> Actually there's a way to make everything easier: The Wiki Foundation. But it
> would create new problems with
Thanks Andrew for the insights. I agree with most of what you have proposed.
Actually there's a way to make everything easier: The Wiki Foundation. But it
would create new problems with non-WMF-wikis.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https:
y an M ad not a P and gives
> >> you the opportunity to talk about our free knowledge ecosystem, that is not
> >> about an Encyclopedia, is much more. So deleting the M from the equation
> >> would vanish even more our sister projects.
> >>
> >> On the o
a good idea to be called Wikivideo, a project by
>> the Wikipedia Foundation, or would we start thinking on calling ourselves
>> The Wikivideo Foundation? I think that being Wikimedia gives us better
>> opportunities to make better decisions on our products than identifying
>> t
g
> totally with one of the products.
>
> And I think there are branding issues, yes, but this are not on the name,
> but on the product and the logo families.
>
> From: Wikimedia-l on behalf of
> Strainu
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:
n our products than identifying
> totally with one of the products.
>
> And I think there are branding issues, yes, but this are not on the name,
> but on the product and the logo families.
>
> From: Wikimedia-l on behalf of
> Strainu
> S
:56 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
Pe marți, 9 aprilie 2019, Chris Keating a
scris:
> > At the occasion, we should also reconsider the expressions "chapter"
> > and "user group".
> >
Pe marți, 9 aprilie 2019, Chris Keating a
scris:
> > At the occasion, we should also reconsider the expressions "chapter"
> > and "user group".
> > "Chapter" is more suitable for local divisions of a national
> > association. And "user group" sounds just like some group. We also
> > already have
Thank you for taking the time to explain, Chris. Actually we need some
kind of good terms to replace some older terms, but the challenge is
that they have to fit the current situation - or, as I understand you,
to introduce a change of the current situation.
Kind regards
Ziko
Am Di., 9. Apr. 2019
om: Wikimedia-l on behalf of
> > Benjamin Ikuta
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 4:21 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
> >
> >
> >
> > What real life problems would
t it is written on Wikipedia.
From: Wikimedia-l on behalf of Chris
Keating
Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 6:39 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
> At the occasion, we should also reconsid
blems to affiliates. Let's think
> > on making our product better, because is not a brand problem, is an
> > obsolescence problem what we have.
> > > ____________________
> > > From: Wikimedia-l on behalf
> > of Gerard Meijssen
> > > Sent: Tues
> At the occasion, we should also reconsider the expressions "chapter"
> and "user group".
> "Chapter" is more suitable for local divisions of a national
> association. And "user group" sounds just like some group. We also
> already have "user group" as a technical term in MediaWiki.
>
You may be
in places where identifying ourselves
> > with Wikipedia could create real life problems to affiliates. Let's think
> > on making our product better, because is not a brand problem, is an
> > obsolescence problem what we have.
> > >
> > > From: Wikimedia-l on behalf
&
ian government that they are not
> really Wikipedia Russia.
>
> From: Wikimedia-l on behalf of
> Benjamin Ikuta
> Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 4:21 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 20
day, April 9, 2019 12:36 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
>
> Hoi,
> The problem is that Wikipedia has an article bound interest. Our aim is to
> share in the sum of all knowledge and it is about subjects. I
not a brand problem, is an
> obsolescence problem what we have.
> >
> > From: Wikimedia-l on behalf
> of Gerard Meijssen
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 12:36 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our
PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
>
> Hoi,
> The problem is that Wikipedia has an article bound interest. Our aim is to
> share in the sum of all knowledge and it is about subjects. In addition to
> this
cence problem what
we have.
From: Wikimedia-l on behalf of Gerard
Meijssen
Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 12:36 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
Hoi,
The problem is that Wikipedia has an article
Hoi,
The problem is that Wikipedia has an article bound interest. Our aim is to
share in the sum of all knowledge and it is about subjects. In addition to
this the approach and `the lessons learned` in effect are used as a
template on how `other` Wikipedias are to function. This bias hinder, even
p
Hi Elena,
If by "branding project" you mean replacing references to Wikimedia
with Wikipedia, that is fine with me.
Best regards,
Jim
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 1:58 AM Elena Lappen wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks to those of you who have participated in the branding project
> community consultation
Hi all,
Thanks to those of you who have participated in the branding project
community consultation so far. We’ve received a lot of helpful feedback via
email, on-wiki, and in small meetings with affiliate group members and
individual contributors.
I posted this invitation to the project talk pag
Pe marți, 26 februarie 2019, Benjamin Ikuta a
scris:
>
>
>
> Is it perhaps a common misconception that Wikipedia is Wikimedia, or visa
> versa?
My personal experience, which seems to be confirmed by this study, is that
people simply have no idea what Wikimedia is. :)
Selling the changes to out
Is it perhaps a common misconception that Wikipedia is Wikimedia, or visa
versa?
On Feb 25, 2019, at 7:13 PM, Zack McCune wrote:
> :: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to ensure
> we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as possible. ::
>
72 matches
Mail list logo
