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
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
> >
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
> 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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
*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
46 matches
Mail list logo
