Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-30 Thread effe iets anders
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread James Salsman
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Nathan
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 >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Samuel Klein
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Peter Southwood
-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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Peter Southwood
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Gnangarra
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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Benjamin Lees
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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"

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Ariel Glenn WMF
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-28 Thread Dan Szymborski
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-28 Thread Dan Szymborski
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-28 Thread WereSpielChequers
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-27 Thread Peter Southwood
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-27 Thread Peter Southwood
: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-26 Thread Zack McCune
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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-26 Thread Paul J. Weiss
"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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-26 Thread Tito Dutta
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