Thank you Nat,
Thank you for pushing up the timeline a bit on having this conversation - I
agree that it's probably better not to stretch the conversation too much,
before an updated process is decided upon.
Will you invite any other people to present additional information to the
board? I think
Hi Zack,
I filled out a survey request for "The Wiki Foundation".
Some of the text of the survey indicated that the legal department thought
that there could be a problem with that possibility, but didn't say why, so
I asked for the source for the claim I quoted in the survey.
How many
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 6:36 AM Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it
> warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not
> argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the
>
Agreed.
Gerard, WSC is a fantastic advocate for our projects, I recall us
working together on the first Commons based editathon many years ago,
it was a privilege to become friends with someone genuinely passionate
for public education and open knowledge.
These personal comments are misleading
Thanks WSC; elegantly put.
On survey process: seconding what others have said,
if you have gotten ~1000 of a desired 4000 responses, and haven't asked two
questions that you realize are essential, yes it is absolutely worth
running a new survey w the new options.
You can even identify
ect, unfortunately they did not
> identify a cure.
> Cheers,
> P
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: 29 June 2020 12:36
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wiki
-l] Board update on Branding: next steps
Hoi,
Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it
warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not
argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the
exchange of arguments when you do
So far it has been an ongoing process. No obvious reason to expect a change.
Cheers,
P
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Dan Szymborski
Sent: 28 June 2020 18:13
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board
It's not rocket science, ask an advertising/PR consulting company what they
think about renaming, they are going to go with the easiest option that's
the best known identity. It's a no brainer exercise of take the money and
run.
There is more to this community/movement than its choice of name,
Hoi,
Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it
warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not
argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the
exchange of arguments when you do not allow for reading and commenting on
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:56 AM Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the choices
> made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects and
> you make that plain in what you say.
>
This sort of assumption-making about other
Hoi,
Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the choices
made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects and
you make that plain in what you say. The problem with bias is that it has
consequences in how you approach issues. When Wikipedia "consensus"
Thank you WereSpielChequers for writing so clearly and concisely what I
have been struggling to put into words for some days.
I understand that good faith efforts were made to investigate the usability
of the terms "W" and "Wiki". [1] Once these wiki-related terms were off the
table, the options
Question about the timeline: will the community's opinions be ignored at
the July or at the August meeting? Or is this considered a continual
process? This information would help people with their planning.
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:37 PM Zack McCune wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> We want to confirm
A survey in which the board's decision cannot possibly be disputed sounds
like a perfect fit rather than an unfit one.
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 10:35 AM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> It is not methodologically sound to continue using a survey which is unfit
> for
Dear Natalia,
I wouldn't say that it was a badly designed survey, more that it was a
survey designed to constrain responses to three specific options. The
problem is with the choice of those options and that the survey seems to be
designed to push the community into a particular direction, rather
It is not methodologically sound to continue using a survey which is unfit for
purpose, regardless of how many people have responded. It is ethically
questionable to continue using a survey which simply does not allow for the
possibility of being completely wrong when this possibility has been
Dear all,
We want to confirm that the Brand Project team has been directed by the
Board to develop new branding options and to evaluate those options with
communities. We invite your perspectives.
We are asking that you continue to participate in the process which
includes completing the survey,
"but with more than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to
change the survey now"
This is preposterous and incredibly disrespectful to the community. It is
not methodologically sound to continue a biased survey. If the Board and
WMF truly want a methodologically sound survey, they
Greetings,
The timeline is pretty clear. Glad to know about the special board meeting
in early July. Other than the open letter there was a straw poll also:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Community_feedback_and_straw_poll
The early July
20 matches
Mail list logo
