Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-19 Thread Jennifer Pryor-Summers
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 may be
for a course of action supported by a minority.  In neither case are they
being ignored.

You, like the rest of us, have the opportunity to present facts and
arguments to the WMF in support of the decision you favour.

JPS

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 5:56 AM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> 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
> provide grounds to change "the brand" anyway?
>
> As to problems with projects, Wikipedia has its problems with citations as
> you indicate in another mail. At Wikidata a whole lot of effort is ongoing
> to include items for sources used for citations in all the Wikipedias. At
> the same time there is new functionality to find/focus on those instances
> where citations are lacking using AI. At some stage these two developments
> will meet. We know about other issues in Wikipedias and as you may know,
> Wikipedians are stubborn, uncooperative and reject what others have to
> offer.
>
> To put it bluntly, the majority smothers the minority, prevents others from
> bringing new developments to a state where it obviously improves on the
> old. Past experience shows there will always be a vocal group from the
> majority preventing change.
>
> Wikipedia as a brand will prove destructive.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
>
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 18:16, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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 of themselves (that they are Wikmedians first and foremost) are in
> the
> > minority. That is a proposition which is capable of being tested: I have
> > not done that test.  If it were to turn out to be true, as I sugest it
> is,
> > that would not be to "deny the minority", it would simply be to state
> that
> > the minority turns out as a matter of fact to be a minority.
> >
> > JPS
> > ___
> > 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: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-18 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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
provide grounds to change "the brand" anyway?

As to problems with projects, Wikipedia has its problems with citations as
you indicate in another mail. At Wikidata a whole lot of effort is ongoing
to include items for sources used for citations in all the Wikipedias. At
the same time there is new functionality to find/focus on those instances
where citations are lacking using AI. At some stage these two developments
will meet. We know about other issues in Wikipedias and as you may know,
Wikipedians are stubborn, uncooperative and reject what others have to
offer.

To put it bluntly, the majority smothers the minority, prevents others from
bringing new developments to a state where it obviously improves on the
old. Past experience shows there will always be a vocal group from the
majority preventing change.

Wikipedia as a brand will prove destructive.
Thanks,
  GerardM



On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 18:16, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 of themselves (that they are Wikmedians first and foremost) are in the
> minority. That is a proposition which is capable of being tested: I have
> not done that test.  If it were to turn out to be true, as I sugest it is,
> that would not be to "deny the minority", it would simply be to state that
> the minority turns out as a matter of fact to be a minority.
>
> JPS
> ___
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-18 Thread rupert THURNER
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 9,372 (includes Wiki Journals)
> Wikivoyage is 14,850
> Wikinews is 60,829
>
> There are 644 million websites. That means all our sites are doing fairly
> well relatively. Wiki Journals are hoping to split off to become their own
> sister site. The Wiki Journals accept primary research and than subject it
> to peer review. Might make sense to merge Wikinews into such a site. Of
> course would require consensus.
>

hey what brilliant idea! i'd support merging wikinews into a something like
wikijournal. besides the more traditional ways like preprint server or
mail, i'd find it especially charming if one option of peer review is the
wiki-way, via "tag the quality and the type", maybe even allow different
groups to set such tags. and not (only) the wikinews way, or, ironically,
the nupedia way, where an editor decides "publish or not", and articles get
stuck into a "preprint", "private", "sandbox" namespace. is this something
which you think might work?

rupert
___
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-18 Thread Jennifer Pryor-Summers
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
blogpost.  English-language Wikinews may be at 60,829 (and so doing a lot
better than Wikitribune at 435,723) but it's still the case that its three
latest news stories are 2, 7 and 10 days old.  This is not the picture of
sites "doing fairly well".

JPS

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 6:33 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 9,372 (includes Wiki Journals)
> Wikivoyage is 14,850
> Wikinews is 60,829
>
> There are 644 million websites. That means all our sites are doing fairly
> well relatively. Wiki Journals are hoping to split off to become their own
> sister site. The Wiki Journals accept primary research and than subject it
> to peer review. Might make sense to merge Wikinews into such a site. Of
> course would require consensus.
>
> James
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:16 AM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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 of themselves (that they are Wikmedians first and foremost) are in
> the
> > minority. That is a proposition which is capable of being tested: I have
> > not done that test.  If it were to turn out to be true, as I sugest it
> is,
> > that would not be to "deny the minority", it would simply be to state
> that
> > the minority turns out as a matter of fact to be a minority.
> >
> > JPS
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> ___
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-18 Thread James Heilman
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 are 644 million websites. That means all our sites are doing fairly
well relatively. Wiki Journals are hoping to split off to become their own
sister site. The Wiki Journals accept primary research and than subject it
to peer review. Might make sense to merge Wikinews into such a site. Of
course would require consensus.

James

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:16 AM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 of themselves (that they are Wikmedians first and foremost) are in the
> minority. That is a proposition which is capable of being tested: I have
> not done that test.  If it were to turn out to be true, as I sugest it is,
> that would not be to "deny the minority", it would simply be to state that
> the minority turns out as a matter of fact to be a minority.
>
> JPS
> ___
> 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,
> 



-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
___
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-18 Thread Jennifer Pryor-Summers
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 of themselves (that they are Wikmedians first and foremost) are in the
minority. That is a proposition which is capable of being tested: I have
not done that test.  If it were to turn out to be true, as I sugest it is,
that would not be to "deny the minority", it would simply be to state that
the minority turns out as a matter of fact to be a minority.

JPS
___
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-18 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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 in fact exactly what the vast
> majority of the volunteers believe that they are.
>
> JPS
> ___
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-18 Thread Peter Southwood
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 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, because the
Foundation is only public facing in contexts where people will be fine with
that name (donations campaign, approaching 3rd parties for projects).

So do we actually have a problem? For example, do we really believe that
renaming the Foundation will actually increase donations or add to any
joint projects in a material way, or is this just that the Foundation
should have a widely recognised name but not a real problem if not?

Calling the entire foundation "The Wikipedia Foundation" enhances one (best
known) project but at the cost of marginalizing all others. Most of my work
is at Wikipedia but even so, I don't think that's a good thing at all,
other projects need a higher profile if anything, not more in Wikipedia's
shadow.  Also it narrows our focus as a project because now our entire
project name is just limited to Wikipedia, hampering our efforts to place
other projects at the "front of the stage" or make them big things. I don't
like that outcome at all.  Also it would be much harder to keep foundation
and community with their separate roles and identities, too much risk of
"blurring".  Those are real harms.

I agree a name change could have benefits, but if done, it must build on
(and "cap") all projects, not just "step into Wikipedia's shoes" only.

How about "The Wiki Knowledge Foundation"? Perhaps styled as "The
WikiKnowledge Foundation"?


   - It follows the naming pattern of * all * projects (Wikipedia,
   WikiNews, WikiCommons, WikiSource ... WikiKnowledge?)
   - It reflects the common aim of * all * projects
   - It keeps the "Wiki" part which is what has recognition beyond all, and
   is clearly distinct from "Wikipedia", but is not confusing, because it's
   clear what it means.
   - "Knowledge" is sufficiently broad that we would probably never have a
   project with that name.
   - There doesn't seem to be an active website with "wikiknowledge", so
   perhaps there's no risk of complaint is the name is used.  As a domain, "
   wikiknowledge-foundation.org" seems to be OK.


If that doesn't work , there are countless variants that might work - wiki
learning foundation, wiki information foundation, wiki projects foundation
for example.

FT2


On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 19:54, Pharos  wrote:

> 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 manifestation of the Free Culture movement that attracted me
> as a member of Student For Free Culture a decade ago.  Rebranding ourselves
> after a mere product is in some ways an erasure of the underlying social
> movement.  When one is part of the "Wikipedia movement", one is just a user
> of a specific website, and it sounds as empty as the "Facebook movement".
>
> That said, I do agree with common-sense changes like WikiCommons and
> perhaps others.  But I don't think that just because we have more money
> now, and maybe it would have been a good idea 10 years ago, that corporate
> rebranding around our most popular product is a good thing to do at this
> stage in the evolution of our movement.
>
> Thanks,
> Pharos
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:01 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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 those automatic repeaters, I left that project and never looked
> > back. As far as I now it never was attractive, it never managed to
> > congregate any proper community worth of that name (at least the
> Portuguese
> > version) - It was kind of a failed project already 10 years ago. And that
> > was one of the reasons and motivations for Jimbo trying to reshuffle the
> > thing as his new child WikiTribu

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-18 Thread FT2
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 volunteers, our regional/country
bodies, volunteers in outreach and universities, editors and others who
truly see themselves as members of a movement and not just editors of
knowledge - probably don't think of it in terms of "only limited to
Wikipedia", but in far broader terms - and if they don't, then we might
want to gently suggest that broader vision to them and not just concur that
it's limited in that way.


On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 07:32, 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 in fact exactly what the vast
> majority of the volunteers believe that they are.
>
> JPS
> ___
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-18 Thread Jennifer Pryor-Summers
>
>
> 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.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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-17 Thread FT2
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 For Free Culture a decade ago.  Rebranding ourselves
> after a mere product is in some ways an erasure of the underlying social
> movement.  When one is part of the "Wikipedia movement", one is just a user
> of a specific website, and it sounds as empty as the "Facebook movement".
>

Yes. You can't be a member of "The Wikipedia Movement".

(And if you could, you'd exclude all other projects + scope from the
movement and erase the breadth that gives life to it. )

FT2
___
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-17 Thread FT2
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, because the
Foundation is only public facing in contexts where people will be fine with
that name (donations campaign, approaching 3rd parties for projects).

So do we actually have a problem? For example, do we really believe that
renaming the Foundation will actually increase donations or add to any
joint projects in a material way, or is this just that the Foundation
should have a widely recognised name but not a real problem if not?

Calling the entire foundation "The Wikipedia Foundation" enhances one (best
known) project but at the cost of marginalizing all others. Most of my work
is at Wikipedia but even so, I don't think that's a good thing at all,
other projects need a higher profile if anything, not more in Wikipedia's
shadow.  Also it narrows our focus as a project because now our entire
project name is just limited to Wikipedia, hampering our efforts to place
other projects at the "front of the stage" or make them big things. I don't
like that outcome at all.  Also it would be much harder to keep foundation
and community with their separate roles and identities, too much risk of
"blurring".  Those are real harms.

I agree a name change could have benefits, but if done, it must build on
(and "cap") all projects, not just "step into Wikipedia's shoes" only.

How about "The Wiki Knowledge Foundation"? Perhaps styled as "The
WikiKnowledge Foundation"?


   - It follows the naming pattern of * all * projects (Wikipedia,
   WikiNews, WikiCommons, WikiSource ... WikiKnowledge?)
   - It reflects the common aim of * all * projects
   - It keeps the "Wiki" part which is what has recognition beyond all, and
   is clearly distinct from "Wikipedia", but is not confusing, because it's
   clear what it means.
   - "Knowledge" is sufficiently broad that we would probably never have a
   project with that name.
   - There doesn't seem to be an active website with "wikiknowledge", so
   perhaps there's no risk of complaint is the name is used.  As a domain, "
   wikiknowledge-foundation.org" seems to be OK.


If that doesn't work , there are countless variants that might work - wiki
learning foundation, wiki information foundation, wiki projects foundation
for example.

FT2


On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 19:54, Pharos  wrote:

> 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 manifestation of the Free Culture movement that attracted me
> as a member of Student For Free Culture a decade ago.  Rebranding ourselves
> after a mere product is in some ways an erasure of the underlying social
> movement.  When one is part of the "Wikipedia movement", one is just a user
> of a specific website, and it sounds as empty as the "Facebook movement".
>
> That said, I do agree with common-sense changes like WikiCommons and
> perhaps others.  But I don't think that just because we have more money
> now, and maybe it would have been a good idea 10 years ago, that corporate
> rebranding around our most popular product is a good thing to do at this
> stage in the evolution of our movement.
>
> Thanks,
> Pharos
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:01 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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 those automatic repeaters, I left that project and never looked
> > back. As far as I now it never was attractive, it never managed to
> > congregate any proper community worth of that name (at least the
> Portuguese
> > version) - It was kind of a failed project already 10 years ago. And that
> > was one of the reasons and motivations for Jimbo trying to reshuffle the
> > thing as his new child WikiTribune. Personally, I do not need that
> project
> > at all. When some news is notable enough (like the tragic Notre-Dame fire
> > yesterday) I create the article for it and build it as an encyclopedic
> > article, which is much more motivating and permanent than whatever is
> made
> > in WikiNews.
> >
> > Personally, I see this branding project as a two headed beast: In one
> head,
> > WMF trying to take undue credit from the Wikipedia brand; on another
> head,
> > some incipient Wikipedia dream of colonization towards other projects. As
> > many, I started my contributions in 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-16 Thread Pharos
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 manifestation of the Free Culture movement that attracted me
as a member of Student For Free Culture a decade ago.  Rebranding ourselves
after a mere product is in some ways an erasure of the underlying social
movement.  When one is part of the "Wikipedia movement", one is just a user
of a specific website, and it sounds as empty as the "Facebook movement".

That said, I do agree with common-sense changes like WikiCommons and
perhaps others.  But I don't think that just because we have more money
now, and maybe it would have been a good idea 10 years ago, that corporate
rebranding around our most popular product is a good thing to do at this
stage in the evolution of our movement.

Thanks,
Pharos

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:01 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 those automatic repeaters, I left that project and never looked
> back. As far as I now it never was attractive, it never managed to
> congregate any proper community worth of that name (at least the Portuguese
> version) - It was kind of a failed project already 10 years ago. And that
> was one of the reasons and motivations for Jimbo trying to reshuffle the
> thing as his new child WikiTribune. Personally, I do not need that project
> at all. When some news is notable enough (like the tragic Notre-Dame fire
> yesterday) I create the article for it and build it as an encyclopedic
> article, which is much more motivating and permanent than whatever is made
> in WikiNews.
>
> Personally, I see this branding project as a two headed beast: In one head,
> WMF trying to take undue credit from the Wikipedia brand; on another head,
> some incipient Wikipedia dream of colonization towards other projects. As
> many, I started my contributions in the Wikimedia projects in Wikipedia,
> but very soon found Commons and the whole Wikipedia-free oasis that thrives
> there. I always looked at Commons as a kind of small paradise, precisely
> for not being necessarily associated with Wikipedia. So, 10 years ago, I
> would be as against the idea of placing Commons under the Wikipedia
> umbrella as I am today. (no opinion about WikiCommons, though, as we can
> continue shortnaming it to Commons anyway)
>
> On the whole, I very much agree with what Phoebe wrote about it.
> Wikicolonizations/WMFappropriations apart, it's very difficult to foresee
> how such a move would advance the goals of our Movement. What problem is
> solved by it? If anything, it seems to bring even more confusion between
> Wikipedia and the other sister projects.
>
> Best,
> Paulo
>
>
> Jennifer Pryor-Summers  escreveu no dia
> terça, 16/04/2019 à(s) 07:52:
>
> > 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 should
> the
> > WMF do to revive it?  Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> > be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> > Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them
> down,
> > on the principle of reinforcing success instead.  These are the big
> > questions it should be asking itself.
> >
> > JPS
> > ___
> > 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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-16 Thread Eduardo Testart
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 for reaching proposals: The proposals seems like things that
should arise from a strategy and not things that shape or embed on a
strategy. Taking this decision, or any decision as a matter of fact, before
a strategy is defined seems odd to me, independently of the strategy result
itself. To others in this thread, it also seems like an outdated proposal.
Shouldn't the strategy shed light onto these matters, and not the proposals
shed light upon the strategy?

- Implications: It seems that the subject of awareness is approached from a
linear perspective, just the perception of a brand (If I'm wrong I
apologize beforehand). Again, at an intuitive level, the costs and risks of
such an implementation seem huge: Some raised legal concerns, in some
particular countries or regions, some people could be more exposed, even
put in danger, being directly associated with Wikipedia, while under the
Wikimedia umbrella, those people might have some degree of separation that
also brings a layer of protection; Some raised costs concerns: Rebranding
could carry thousands of hours of work from volunteers, maybe a lot of the
material provided might need to be re-written, re-adjusted. Most of this
work seems that it would need to be carried out by volunteers; Will a
decision like this undermine the morale of the movement as a whole? And on
top of it, if we add a layer of financial costs, like changing agreements,
domains, banners, cards, printed material, videos, etc., a modification
based on this proposal seems like it has to be well thought out, and
definitely not improvise, before is taken into consideration, and again,
the same question than before comes to mind, that a decision like this, in
this particular moment, should come from the strategy and not the opposite.

- Coordination: To me, the lunch of the proposal also seems more like an
independent approach than a coordinated effort towards a higher goal, since
a strategy for the whole movement is being discussed at the same time, and
the proposals seem to entangle the discussion at some level, as proved at
least by this particular thread. I'm not trying to underestimate the
difficulties of coordination but to highlight that we should try our best
to be as coordinated as possible, our limited energy will be driven more
effectively, and if we do so, hopefully, we might generate a bigger impact
as a whole.

I believe that some proposals from the study are very valuable, I just
really don't think this is the right timing for proposing changes, that
timing has to do, at least at some level, with coordination (which should
never be underestimated as a difficult and consuming task), and that some
changes need to be analyzed from a multi-layered, and multi-location
perspective, to be able to make a decision as informed as we could be, and
risk or not into implementing changes based on that information.

If could make a suggestion, is to embrace all the information that came
from the study to enrich the discussion about strategy at large, but
refrain to implement any proposals until a wider strategy is defined.


Cheers,

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:37 AM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> 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
> back in a week and continue. A new item for Wikinews should be written
> quickly - one day old news are not really news - and published in a form
> which is digestable from the very beginning. It is not incremental, and
> there is very little room for collaborative writing.
>
> And competition for news items is of course way stronger than for wikipedia
> articles.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:52 AM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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 should
> the
> > WMF do to revive it?  Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> > be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> > Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them
> down,
> > on the principle of reinforcing success instead.  These are the big
> > questions it should be asking itself.
> >
> > JPS
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-16 Thread Paulo Santos Perneta
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 those automatic repeaters, I left that project and never looked
back. As far as I now it never was attractive, it never managed to
congregate any proper community worth of that name (at least the Portuguese
version) - It was kind of a failed project already 10 years ago. And that
was one of the reasons and motivations for Jimbo trying to reshuffle the
thing as his new child WikiTribune. Personally, I do not need that project
at all. When some news is notable enough (like the tragic Notre-Dame fire
yesterday) I create the article for it and build it as an encyclopedic
article, which is much more motivating and permanent than whatever is made
in WikiNews.

Personally, I see this branding project as a two headed beast: In one head,
WMF trying to take undue credit from the Wikipedia brand; on another head,
some incipient Wikipedia dream of colonization towards other projects. As
many, I started my contributions in the Wikimedia projects in Wikipedia,
but very soon found Commons and the whole Wikipedia-free oasis that thrives
there. I always looked at Commons as a kind of small paradise, precisely
for not being necessarily associated with Wikipedia. So, 10 years ago, I
would be as against the idea of placing Commons under the Wikipedia
umbrella as I am today. (no opinion about WikiCommons, though, as we can
continue shortnaming it to Commons anyway)

On the whole, I very much agree with what Phoebe wrote about it.
Wikicolonizations/WMFappropriations apart, it's very difficult to foresee
how such a move would advance the goals of our Movement. What problem is
solved by it? If anything, it seems to bring even more confusion between
Wikipedia and the other sister projects.

Best,
Paulo


Jennifer Pryor-Summers  escreveu no dia
terça, 16/04/2019 à(s) 07:52:

> 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 should the
> WMF do to revive it?  Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them down,
> on the principle of reinforcing success instead.  These are the big
> questions it should be asking itself.
>
> JPS
> ___
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-16 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
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
back in a week and continue. A new item for Wikinews should be written
quickly - one day old news are not really news - and published in a form
which is digestable from the very beginning. It is not incremental, and
there is very little room for collaborative writing.

And competition for news items is of course way stronger than for wikipedia
articles.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:52 AM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 should the
> WMF do to revive it?  Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them down,
> on the principle of reinforcing success instead.  These are the big
> questions it should be asking itself.
>
> JPS
> ___
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-16 Thread Jennifer Pryor-Summers
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 should the
WMF do to revive it?  Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them down,
on the principle of reinforcing success instead.  These are the big
questions it should be asking itself.

JPS
___
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-15 Thread Risker
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
brand; if one looks at the most recent "big tech" renaming, we saw Google
move to Alphabet, actually divorcing themselves from their keystone brand.
I suspect that, had the foundation originally been named the "Wikipedia
Foundation", we might very well be looking to change the name to something
more generic (like "Wikimedia Foundation") today.  Given the longterm
strategic goal of being a broad and deep knowledge ecostructure, I think a
more generic name serves the movement better.

Much as I very much appreciate the time, energy and other resources that
have led to this proposal, there's not a lot of evidence of "value for
money" in proceeding, especially as a lot of the costs would devolve down
to affiliates that have much more pressing needs to meet with their limited
financial resources.  I won't enter into any discussion about whether
certain of our projects should be left by the wayside, but I will note that
there are significant variations in the "popularity" of various projects
between language groups as well as cultural groups.

Risker/Anne

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 09:28, Philippe Beaudette 
wrote:

> 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 sure that the cost outlay and the time that it will take to clear up
> the confusion that a rebrand will cause is demonstrably worth the value
> received from it, for the reasons that Phoebe lays out below.
>
> Best,
> Philippe
> (former staff, still a volunteer, though of greatly reduced volume)
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 9:42 AM 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
> > opposed to the projects themselves)?
> >
> > Having Wikimedia be a more recognizable entity or brand does not seem to
> me
> > like it would help us in our core goals, of recruiting editors and
> content
> > to the *projects*. We do not typically use the Wikimedia name to do
> > outreach, or to talk about the projects; the handful of us that are
> > insiders and give presentations about the WMF is small, relative to the
> > number of educators and librarians and editors talking about Wikipedia.
> (I
> > give many trainings on editing Wikipedia every year; talking about
> > Wikimedia is irrelevant for this purpose). Perhaps a rebrand would make
> > fundraising easier -- but we already use the project brand for that, as
> > most fundraising is directly off the projects, and the fundraising that
> > isn't (grants and large donations) has a lot of communication around it.
> So
> > I'm not sure how a rebrand would help here either.
> >
> > The premise of this whole exercise is that people knowing about Wikimedia
> > as an entity will somehow help us. But we are not trying to recruit
> > contributors to the Foundation, or to the chapters; we are trying to
> > recruit them to the projects, and if the infrastructure of our network is
> > invisible, I am fine with that. I think to increase the centrality of the
> > *organization* is a distraction that misses the point of both our mission
> > and the role of the organization, which is to provide infrastructure.
> We're
> > not selling shoes here; more brand awareness of the Foundation does not
> > translate into a direct furthering of our mission, and more focus on the
> > organization is at best a distraction for overworked volunteers.
> >
> > Like Andrew, I might have been excited about naming it the Wikipedia
> > Foundation ten or fifteen years ago. But now, I think there is a wide
> world
> > of free knowledge that we want to imagine -- including a future of our
> > projects remixed into something new, beyond Wikipedia. So for that reason
> > too, I am skeptical.
> >
> > regards,
> > Phoebe
> > (former WMF trustee)
> > ___
> > 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:
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-15 Thread Paulo Santos Perneta
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
> > > 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".
>
>
> Surely WMF projects are in competition with commercial entities, and very
> successfully so?  Wikipedia vs Britannica and Encarta; Wikivoyage vs
> Wiktravel; Wikinews vs Wikitribune; and so forth.  We celebrate those
> projects successes ...
>
> JPS
> ___
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-15 Thread Jennifer Pryor-Summers
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".


Surely WMF projects are in competition with commercial entities, and very
successfully so?  Wikipedia vs Britannica and Encarta; Wikivoyage vs
Wiktravel; Wikinews vs Wikitribune; and so forth.  We celebrate those
projects successes ...

JPS
___
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-15 Thread Luiz Augusto
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 of the WMF, not the name
> "Wikimedia".
> (...)

The real issue is the community not stopping the moron who changed a
colored logo historically associated to diversity into a tedious P
version and changed the WMF blog skin to a set of aggressive and repulsive
colors.

Not stopping a disease in their very initial stages have a price.

Listing comercial entities as competitors with WMF projects is the worse
thing I've forced to read on my life.

[[m:User:555]]
P.S.: the "m" portion on my signature is a interwiki, not my gender, if
someone don't knows
___
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-15 Thread Paulo Santos Perneta
Also reminding that most of us who are members of national chapters are
volunteers at the projects, and many of us were in the projects for long
before joining a chapter or UG.

If the WMF spoils the chapters, we will find our way and do the same thing
we are doing for ages, advancing good quality knowledge free and open for
everyone, with or without WMF support. It is obviously better if we are all
in the same boat, but it's important to leave it clear that it is not a
fatality.

Regards,
Paulo

Peter Southwood  escreveu no dia segunda,
15/04/2019 à(s) 08:29:

> The members of the chapters are volunteers, so free to simply walk away
> any time they choose. Shove too hard and you have no chapter. Who wins?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Jennifer Pryor-Summers
> 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 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 half of your income comes from the Foundation, then when push comes to
> shove, you do what they tell you to.
>
> JPS
>
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 1:54 PM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > 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
> > by each board, and each board should be free to make their own
> > decision on the necessity of the change and agree their budget for
> > changing, not simply because some unnamed marketing consultant gave
> > some expensive advice to the WMF about "branding". There is zero
> > verifiable statistical evidence to back up claimed benefits apart from
> > vague hand waving to pie charts in presentations about 'markets' for
> > which nothing is explained about the self-selected sample space, and
> > for which there are no reported credible tests.
> >
> > 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".
> >
> > Fae
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 09:45, Ed Saperia  wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 <
> > rebeccanin...@gmail.com>
> > > > 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
> > > >> involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are
> > very
> > > >> keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as
> > editors.
> > > >> Presenting our group as something more than people who are
> experienced
> > > >> Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes
> > that
> > > >> message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Dear Rebecca,
> > > > Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more...
> > > > I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group
> I'm
> > > > currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy
> > ecosystem
> > > > of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that
> > chapters,
> > > > affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for
> > the
> > > > larger goal

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-15 Thread Peter Southwood
The members of the chapters are volunteers, so free to simply walk away any 
time they choose. Shove too hard and you have no chapter. Who wins?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Jennifer Pryor-Summers
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 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 half of your income comes from the Foundation, then when push comes to
shove, you do what they tell you to.

JPS

On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 1:54 PM Fæ  wrote:

> 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
> by each board, and each board should be free to make their own
> decision on the necessity of the change and agree their budget for
> changing, not simply because some unnamed marketing consultant gave
> some expensive advice to the WMF about "branding". There is zero
> verifiable statistical evidence to back up claimed benefits apart from
> vague hand waving to pie charts in presentations about 'markets' for
> which nothing is explained about the self-selected sample space, and
> for which there are no reported credible tests.
>
> 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".
>
> Fae
>
>
>
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 09:45, Ed Saperia  wrote:
> >
> > 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 <
> rebeccanin...@gmail.com>
> > > 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
> > >> involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are
> very
> > >> keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as
> editors.
> > >> Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced
> > >> Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes
> that
> > >> message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Dear Rebecca,
> > > Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more...
> > > I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group I'm
> > > currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy
> ecosystem
> > > of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that
> chapters,
> > > affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for
> the
> > > larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for
> > > improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.
> > >
> > > Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal
> > > infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly
> > > geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to
> supporting
> > > existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We
> do
> > > this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many
> > > effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and that
> > > participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not
> directly
> > > editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of
> > > building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia
> group/
> > > structure, most notably the thousands of independent voluntee

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-14 Thread Jennifer Pryor-Summers
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 half of your income comes from the Foundation, then when push comes to
shove, you do what they tell you to.

JPS

On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 1:54 PM Fæ  wrote:

> 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
> by each board, and each board should be free to make their own
> decision on the necessity of the change and agree their budget for
> changing, not simply because some unnamed marketing consultant gave
> some expensive advice to the WMF about "branding". There is zero
> verifiable statistical evidence to back up claimed benefits apart from
> vague hand waving to pie charts in presentations about 'markets' for
> which nothing is explained about the self-selected sample space, and
> for which there are no reported credible tests.
>
> 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".
>
> Fae
>
>
>
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 09:45, Ed Saperia  wrote:
> >
> > 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 <
> rebeccanin...@gmail.com>
> > > 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
> > >> involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are
> very
> > >> keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as
> editors.
> > >> Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced
> > >> Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes
> that
> > >> message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Dear Rebecca,
> > > Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more...
> > > I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group I'm
> > > currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy
> ecosystem
> > > of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that
> chapters,
> > > affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for
> the
> > > larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for
> > > improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.
> > >
> > > Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal
> > > infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly
> > > geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to
> supporting
> > > existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We
> do
> > > this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many
> > > effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and that
> > > participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not
> directly
> > > editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of
> > > building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia
> group/
> > > structure, most notably the thousands of independent volunteers who
> work
> > > largely alone to maintain and build the projects, and upon whose work
> we
> > > all depend. Groups, and the Foundation, are important! But they are
> not, in
> > > themselves, the end goal.
> > >
> > > So where does this leave us with rebranding? I admit I haven't read
> all of
> > > the comments/analysis. But, to my mind, there's a cost to rebranding:
> the
> > > several hundred person-hours that have already been put into this
> > > discussion, if nothing else. For the benefit to outweigh the cost, we
> need
> > > to imagine what will happen to increase participation in building free
> > > knowledge as a result. If we are "Wikipedia New England" or "Wikipedia
> > > Ireland" et al, will our groups be more effective -- for instance,
> with an
> > > easier to understand name, will new people join our trainings, perhaps
> > > becoming Wikipedia editors? Will more cultural institutions reach out,
> and
> > > be more amenable to releasing images? If 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-14 Thread Philippe Beaudette
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 sure that the cost outlay and the time that it will take to clear up
the confusion that a rebrand will cause is demonstrably worth the value
received from it, for the reasons that Phoebe lays out below.

Best,
Philippe
(former staff, still a volunteer, though of greatly reduced volume)



On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 9:42 AM 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
> opposed to the projects themselves)?
>
> Having Wikimedia be a more recognizable entity or brand does not seem to me
> like it would help us in our core goals, of recruiting editors and content
> to the *projects*. We do not typically use the Wikimedia name to do
> outreach, or to talk about the projects; the handful of us that are
> insiders and give presentations about the WMF is small, relative to the
> number of educators and librarians and editors talking about Wikipedia. (I
> give many trainings on editing Wikipedia every year; talking about
> Wikimedia is irrelevant for this purpose). Perhaps a rebrand would make
> fundraising easier -- but we already use the project brand for that, as
> most fundraising is directly off the projects, and the fundraising that
> isn't (grants and large donations) has a lot of communication around it. So
> I'm not sure how a rebrand would help here either.
>
> The premise of this whole exercise is that people knowing about Wikimedia
> as an entity will somehow help us. But we are not trying to recruit
> contributors to the Foundation, or to the chapters; we are trying to
> recruit them to the projects, and if the infrastructure of our network is
> invisible, I am fine with that. I think to increase the centrality of the
> *organization* is a distraction that misses the point of both our mission
> and the role of the organization, which is to provide infrastructure. We're
> not selling shoes here; more brand awareness of the Foundation does not
> translate into a direct furthering of our mission, and more focus on the
> organization is at best a distraction for overworked volunteers.
>
> Like Andrew, I might have been excited about naming it the Wikipedia
> Foundation ten or fifteen years ago. But now, I think there is a wide world
> of free knowledge that we want to imagine -- including a future of our
> projects remixed into something new, beyond Wikipedia. So for that reason
> too, I am skeptical.
>
> regards,
> Phoebe
> (former WMF trustee)
> ___
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-14 Thread
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
by each board, and each board should be free to make their own
decision on the necessity of the change and agree their budget for
changing, not simply because some unnamed marketing consultant gave
some expensive advice to the WMF about "branding". There is zero
verifiable statistical evidence to back up claimed benefits apart from
vague hand waving to pie charts in presentations about 'markets' for
which nothing is explained about the self-selected sample space, and
for which there are no reported credible tests.

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".

Fae



On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 09:45, Ed Saperia  wrote:
>
> 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 
> > 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
> >> involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are very
> >> keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as editors.
> >> Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced
> >> Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes that
> >> message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
> >>
> >
> > Dear Rebecca,
> > Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more...
> > I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group I'm
> > currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy ecosystem
> > of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that chapters,
> > affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for the
> > larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for
> > improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.
> >
> > Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal
> > infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly
> > geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to supporting
> > existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We do
> > this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many
> > effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and that
> > participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not directly
> > editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of
> > building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia group/
> > structure, most notably the thousands of independent volunteers who work
> > largely alone to maintain and build the projects, and upon whose work we
> > all depend. Groups, and the Foundation, are important! But they are not, in
> > themselves, the end goal.
> >
> > So where does this leave us with rebranding? I admit I haven't read all of
> > the comments/analysis. But, to my mind, there's a cost to rebranding: the
> > several hundred person-hours that have already been put into this
> > discussion, if nothing else. For the benefit to outweigh the cost, we need
> > to imagine what will happen to increase participation in building free
> > knowledge as a result. If we are "Wikipedia New England" or "Wikipedia
> > Ireland" et al, will our groups be more effective -- for instance, with an
> > easier to understand name, will new people join our trainings, perhaps
> > becoming Wikipedia editors? Will more cultural institutions reach out, and
> > be more amenable to releasing images? If the Foundation is the Wikipedia
> > Foundation, then how does this improve the infrastructure that the
> > Foundation provides, exactly?
> >
> > If the answer is that this change will definitely increase participation in
> > the projects and free knowledge generally, through the mechanism of the
> > various groups being more recognizable and thus reaching a bigger audience,
> > then the proposal is worth seriously considering. But if it is hard to
> > imagine - and I admit I do find it hard to imagine that the name of the
> > Foundation is the thing standing in our way to wider Wikipedia
> > participation - then it doesn't seem worth the cost.
> >
> > -- Phoebe

--

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-14 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 10:45, Ed Saperia  wrote:

> 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  >
> > 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
> >> involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are very
> >> keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as editors.
> >> Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced
> >> Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes that
> >> message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
> >>
> >
> > Dear Rebecca,
> > Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more...
> > I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group I'm
> > currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy
> ecosystem
> > of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that chapters,
> > affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for the
> > larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for
> > improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.
> >
> > Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal
> > infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly
> > geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to supporting
> > existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We do
> > this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many
> > effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and that
> > participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not directly
> > editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of
> > building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia group/
> > structure, most notably the thousands of independent volunteers who work
> > largely alone to maintain and build the projects, and upon whose work we
> > all depend. Groups, and the Foundation, are important! But they are not,
> in
> > themselves, the end goal.
> >
> > So where does this leave us with rebranding? I admit I haven't read all
> of
> > the comments/analysis. But, to my mind, there's a cost to rebranding: the
> > several hundred person-hours that have already been put into this
> > discussion, if nothing else. For the benefit to outweigh the cost, we
> need
> > to imagine what will happen to increase participation in building free
> > knowledge as a result. If we are "Wikipedia New England" or "Wikipedia
> > Ireland" et al, will our groups be more effective -- for instance, with
> an
> > easier to understand name, will new people join our trainings, perhaps
> > becoming Wikipedia editors? Will more cultural institutions reach out,
> and
> > be more amenable to releasing images? If the Foundation is the Wikipedia
> > Foundation, then how does this improve the infrastructure that the
> > Foundation provides, exactly?
> >
> > If the answer is that this change will definitely increase participation
> in
> > the projects and free knowledge generally, through the mechanism of the
> > various groups being more recognizable and thus reaching a bigger
> audience,
> > then the proposal is worth seriously considering. But if it is hard to
> > imagine - and I admit I do find it hard to imagine that the name of the
> > Foundation is the thing standing in our way to wider Wikipedia
> > participation - then it doesn't seem worth the cost.
> >
> > -- Phoebe
> > ___
> > 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-14 Thread Ed Saperia
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 
> 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
>> involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are very
>> keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as editors.
>> Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced
>> Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes that
>> message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
>> 
> 
> Dear Rebecca,
> Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more...
> I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group I'm
> currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy ecosystem
> of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that chapters,
> affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for the
> larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for
> improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.
> 
> Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal
> infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly
> geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to supporting
> existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We do
> this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many
> effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and that
> participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not directly
> editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of
> building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia group/
> structure, most notably the thousands of independent volunteers who work
> largely alone to maintain and build the projects, and upon whose work we
> all depend. Groups, and the Foundation, are important! But they are not, in
> themselves, the end goal.
> 
> So where does this leave us with rebranding? I admit I haven't read all of
> the comments/analysis. But, to my mind, there's a cost to rebranding: the
> several hundred person-hours that have already been put into this
> discussion, if nothing else. For the benefit to outweigh the cost, we need
> to imagine what will happen to increase participation in building free
> knowledge as a result. If we are "Wikipedia New England" or "Wikipedia
> Ireland" et al, will our groups be more effective -- for instance, with an
> easier to understand name, will new people join our trainings, perhaps
> becoming Wikipedia editors? Will more cultural institutions reach out, and
> be more amenable to releasing images? If the Foundation is the Wikipedia
> Foundation, then how does this improve the infrastructure that the
> Foundation provides, exactly?
> 
> If the answer is that this change will definitely increase participation in
> the projects and free knowledge generally, through the mechanism of the
> various groups being more recognizable and thus reaching a bigger audience,
> then the proposal is worth seriously considering. But if it is hard to
> imagine - and I admit I do find it hard to imagine that the name of the
> Foundation is the thing standing in our way to wider Wikipedia
> participation - then it doesn't seem worth the cost.
> 
> -- Phoebe
> ___
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread phoebe ayers
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
> involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are very
> keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as editors.
> Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced
> Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes that
> message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
>

Dear Rebecca,
Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more...
I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group I'm
currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy ecosystem
of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that chapters,
affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for the
larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for
improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.

Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal
infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly
geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to supporting
existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We do
this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many
effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and that
participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not directly
editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of
building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia group/
structure, most notably the thousands of independent volunteers who work
largely alone to maintain and build the projects, and upon whose work we
all depend. Groups, and the Foundation, are important! But they are not, in
themselves, the end goal.

So where does this leave us with rebranding? I admit I haven't read all of
the comments/analysis. But, to my mind, there's a cost to rebranding: the
several hundred person-hours that have already been put into this
discussion, if nothing else. For the benefit to outweigh the cost, we need
to imagine what will happen to increase participation in building free
knowledge as a result. If we are "Wikipedia New England" or "Wikipedia
Ireland" et al, will our groups be more effective -- for instance, with an
easier to understand name, will new people join our trainings, perhaps
becoming Wikipedia editors? Will more cultural institutions reach out, and
be more amenable to releasing images? If the Foundation is the Wikipedia
Foundation, then how does this improve the infrastructure that the
Foundation provides, exactly?

If the answer is that this change will definitely increase participation in
the projects and free knowledge generally, through the mechanism of the
various groups being more recognizable and thus reaching a bigger audience,
then the proposal is worth seriously considering. But if it is hard to
imagine - and I admit I do find it hard to imagine that the name of the
Foundation is the thing standing in our way to wider Wikipedia
participation - then it doesn't seem worth the cost.

-- Phoebe
___
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Anders Wennersten
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 everything 
and regarding use of Wikidata it  is not a leader


Anders


Den 2019-04-13 kl. 21:01, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:

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 8:31 PM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:


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 at 20:21, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:


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:
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: 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
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 8:31 PM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> 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 at 20:21, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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:
> > 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: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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 at 20:21, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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:
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Rebecca O'Neill
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 very
keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as editors.
Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced
Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes that
message easier would be of huge benefit to us.

On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 19:21, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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:
> 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,
> 



-- 
PhD in Digital Media
Project Coordinator Wikimedia Community Ireland 

Blogs rebecca-oneill.com and The Restless Curator

___
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
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: 
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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
delivered in the format of articles but it may also be delivered in the
format of books data presentations and images.

This obsession of Wikipedia being the objective of all of that we do, the
format that is to apply to everything we do is holding us back. A few
examples; we do not officially present the data of Wikidata in a format
that is useful to humans. Such formats have existed for years in the format
of Reasonator and recently in the format of Scholia. Compare that to the
bickering about including Wikidata in Wikipedia and it is obvious how
Wikipedia is holding us back. Several volunteers used data from many
sources and created a wealth of Wikipedia articles that would otherwise
have hardly any at all. The verdict: it is not by a community and
consequently it cannot be maintained. No research has been done, no
outreach happened. It is a success story that does not fit the mold and is
ignored. Within the movement there is a general agreement that the gender
gap affects us all. It is why we celebrate the success of the diminishment
of this gap and rightfully so as it is pervasive and recognisable in all of
our projects. It is however not our biggest bias. Our biggest bias is the
AngloAmerican bias.

The only way out of it I see is in a change of outlook. Our outlook needs
to be less Wikipedia and its articles and more about what DO we have on a
subject and expose them in any form we have. Expose them together with all
the organisations that have a compatible outlook. When we actively engage
people who seek information by asking them to expand on what they seek, we
will slowly but surely  increase the amount of information we hold and have
this information in all of our languages.

This different approach can happily coexist with our Wikipedia bias. It
does not take much to get it of the ground. What it does take is the
realisation that Wikimedia is NOT Wikipedia. This is necessary for this
experiment to start..
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 17:56, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> 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 importance: Wikidata will surely be
> equally important to knowledge sharing, and more pervasive, though the two
> are hard to compare and not independent.
>
> I mean purely in the memetics and brand sense: the history of humanity will
> keep a mention of Wikipedia for centuries, should we persist that long.
> Its success, elegance, and defiance of previous assumptions remains in many
> places the dominant shorthand for crowdsourcing, period; for editable
> websites;  the standard visual template for reference works.
>
> Other projects that follow in those footsteps, even if they become much
> more influential or pervasive, will not surpass the deep and broad appeal
> of the original.
>
> 
>
> That said !
>
> Aside from recognizing confusion around 'Wikimedia' that we can reduce, I
> reckon a central
>  branding focus should be making our messaging and core interactions
> (including Wikidata and Commons meta pages) truly interlingual.  This takes
> a combination of software, translators, and brand focus.  It is the obvious
> way to meaningfully amplify reach and participation in underrepresented
> regions: literally underrepresented because the projects don't seem to
> speak to or to know how to hear from them; and because of iterative network
> effects of those on projects inviting their friends, enemies, and
> colleagues.
>
> Rather than the somewhat zero sum efforts to change branding in a way that
> shifts around community expectations (and may not attract any more
> contributors), a branding effort that enhances cross language connection
> and reminds people of the global bounty of the projects, would be an
> updraft for all.
>
> Run translation drives every month, posting banners in other languages on
> each project inviting participation. ;). Revel in the experimental
> brokenness of multilingual-talk-page tools and invite pan-language web
> designers to.come play + iterate with us, w a bit UN and translator-network
> campaign.
>
> We don't have to keep repainting the sign on our house, we can now
> relandscape the entire neighborhood.
>
> SJ
>
> p.s. if Commons hates 'Wikicommons' we can vid up and return to its
> original name, MultimediaWiki.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Nathan
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
> opposed to the projects themselves)?
>
> Having Wikimedia be a more recognizable entity or brand does not seem to me
> like it would help us in our core goals, of recruiting editors and content
> to the *projects*. We do not typically use the Wikimedia name to do
> outreach, or to talk about the projects; the handful of us that are
> insiders and give presentations about the WMF is small, relative to the
> number of educators and librarians and editors talking about Wikipedia. (I
> give many trainings on editing Wikipedia every year; talking about
> Wikimedia is irrelevant for this purpose). Perhaps a rebrand would make
> fundraising easier -- but we already use the project brand for that, as
> most fundraising is directly off the projects, and the fundraising that
> isn't (grants and large donations) has a lot of communication around it. So
> I'm not sure how a rebrand would help here either.
>
> The premise of this whole exercise is that people knowing about Wikimedia
> as an entity will somehow help us. But we are not trying to recruit
> contributors to the Foundation, or to the chapters; we are trying to
> recruit them to the projects, and if the infrastructure of our network is
> invisible, I am fine with that. I think to increase the centrality of the
> *organization* is a distraction that misses the point of both our mission
> and the role of the organization, which is to provide infrastructure. We're
> not selling shoes here; more brand awareness of the Foundation does not
> translate into a direct furthering of our mission, and more focus on the
> organization is at best a distraction for overworked volunteers.
>
> Like Andrew, I might have been excited about naming it the Wikipedia
> Foundation ten or fifteen years ago. But now, I think there is a wide world
> of free knowledge that we want to imagine -- including a future of our
> projects remixed into something new, beyond Wikipedia. So for that reason
> too, I am skeptical.
>
> regards,
> Phoebe
> (former WMF trustee)


This is the most persuasive perspective I've read so far, thank you Phoebe.

I also wonder why it makes sense to pursue a WMF rebranding project (which
is expensive in terms of time, money, volunteer effort and in other ways)
at the same time as the strategy process is questioning  whether the WMF
(or chapters, UGs, etc.) are the right vehicles for the movement goals. If
the strategy process is honestly holding open the possibility that the WMF
might not be the right organization to lead, then rebranding before the
process is complete is a strange decision.
___
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread phoebe ayers
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
> Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
>
> Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the
> world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to get
> a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and evaluate
> public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
>

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
opposed to the projects themselves)?

Having Wikimedia be a more recognizable entity or brand does not seem to me
like it would help us in our core goals, of recruiting editors and content
to the *projects*. We do not typically use the Wikimedia name to do
outreach, or to talk about the projects; the handful of us that are
insiders and give presentations about the WMF is small, relative to the
number of educators and librarians and editors talking about Wikipedia. (I
give many trainings on editing Wikipedia every year; talking about
Wikimedia is irrelevant for this purpose). Perhaps a rebrand would make
fundraising easier -- but we already use the project brand for that, as
most fundraising is directly off the projects, and the fundraising that
isn't (grants and large donations) has a lot of communication around it. So
I'm not sure how a rebrand would help here either.

The premise of this whole exercise is that people knowing about Wikimedia
as an entity will somehow help us. But we are not trying to recruit
contributors to the Foundation, or to the chapters; we are trying to
recruit them to the projects, and if the infrastructure of our network is
invisible, I am fine with that. I think to increase the centrality of the
*organization* is a distraction that misses the point of both our mission
and the role of the organization, which is to provide infrastructure. We're
not selling shoes here; more brand awareness of the Foundation does not
translate into a direct furthering of our mission, and more focus on the
organization is at best a distraction for overworked volunteers.

Like Andrew, I might have been excited about naming it the Wikipedia
Foundation ten or fifteen years ago. But now, I think there is a wide world
of free knowledge that we want to imagine -- including a future of our
projects remixed into something new, beyond Wikipedia. So for that reason
too, I am skeptical.

regards,
Phoebe
(former WMF trustee)
___
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Samuel Klein
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 importance: Wikidata will surely be
equally important to knowledge sharing, and more pervasive, though the two
are hard to compare and not independent.

I mean purely in the memetics and brand sense: the history of humanity will
keep a mention of Wikipedia for centuries, should we persist that long.
Its success, elegance, and defiance of previous assumptions remains in many
places the dominant shorthand for crowdsourcing, period; for editable
websites;  the standard visual template for reference works.

Other projects that follow in those footsteps, even if they become much
more influential or pervasive, will not surpass the deep and broad appeal
of the original.



That said !

Aside from recognizing confusion around 'Wikimedia' that we can reduce, I
reckon a central
 branding focus should be making our messaging and core interactions
(including Wikidata and Commons meta pages) truly interlingual.  This takes
a combination of software, translators, and brand focus.  It is the obvious
way to meaningfully amplify reach and participation in underrepresented
regions: literally underrepresented because the projects don't seem to
speak to or to know how to hear from them; and because of iterative network
effects of those on projects inviting their friends, enemies, and
colleagues.

Rather than the somewhat zero sum efforts to change branding in a way that
shifts around community expectations (and may not attract any more
contributors), a branding effort that enhances cross language connection
and reminds people of the global bounty of the projects, would be an
updraft for all.

Run translation drives every month, posting banners in other languages on
each project inviting participation. ;). Revel in the experimental
brokenness of multilingual-talk-page tools and invite pan-language web
designers to.come play + iterate with us, w a bit UN and translator-network
campaign.

We don't have to keep repainting the sign on our house, we can now
relandscape the entire neighborhood.

SJ

p.s. if Commons hates 'Wikicommons' we can vid up and return to its
original name, MultimediaWiki.
___
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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 there
is traffic from everything else..

As to accounting for the spending of the Wikimedia Foundation itself,
MediaWiki is developed for Wikipedia. Development of Wikidata is done by
the German chapter.  So spending of over 50% for English Wikipedia is
better than plausible. When new features are introduced, they fit English
Wikipedia perfectly. There is no indication whatsoever that features are
developed specifically for the small Wikipedias. It is easy enough to argue
that many of the "must have" Wikipedia features are an impediment for the
development of the small Wikipedias and as  Research is focused on English
as well, there is not much to say otherwise.

Now, please move on and consider the other points I made.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 10:55, Joseph Seddon  wrote:

> > 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 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread
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 management, or maybe just its
team from Wolff Olins; anyone seen a budget line for this consultancy,
I'm assuming this advice is not free, or cheap?

If volunteers want to chew over something that is more meaningful how
about /transparency/, a target that by all practical measures has got
visibly worse over the last five years and appears to have been
deliberately dropped from every top level strategy document:
* Should the WMF cap CEO personal expenses to under $1,000,000 a year,
and publicly report on all individual senior management total expenses
over $50,000 a year AND report on these within a year of the spend?
* Should Wikimedia project volunteers be able to request and view the
reports that the WMF holds about them, in the same way as is legally
required under European law?
* Should the WMF publish flight travel expenses, and set targets for
decreasing year on year flight travel as part of actively doing
anything at all to decrease the WMF's contribution to climate change?

Ps, it is worth looking at some of the links in the original email, it
is revealing that WMF senior management appears to believe that it is
a competitor with the commercial worlds of social media, YouTube and
internet search engines. If this is how strategy and targets are
created, then the "sum of human knowledge" goals are horribly watered
down between ideology and delivery through the eyes of management
consultants.

Thanks,
Fae


On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 03:14, 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
> Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
>
> Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the
> world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to get
> a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and evaluate
> public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
>
> We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part of
> our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was commissioned
> by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and
> directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected
> perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China,
> Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and
> values.
>
> The study revealed some interesting trends:
>
> - Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North America.
>
> - Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5] and is
> fast growing.
>
> - There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower. For
> example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%, Wikidata at
> 20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
>
> - There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia. Respondents
> reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its relationship
> to Wikipedia.
>
> - In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed a high
> level of support for our mission.
>
> Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also made a
> strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The
> suggestions include:
>
> - Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
>
> - Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from Wikipedia to
> drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller projects.
>
> - Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons
> which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent with
> other projects.
>
> - Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate groups
> that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
>
> - Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to reassert the
> connections between projects (e.g. “__ - A Wikipedia project”).
>
> This is not a new idea.[7][8]
>
> By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared among the communities who give
> them meaning. So in considering this change, the Wikimedia Foundation is
> collecting feedback from across our communities. Our goal is to speak with
> more than 80% of affiliates and as many individual contributors as possible
> before May 2019, when we will offer the Board of Trustees a summary of
> community response.
>
> We invite you to look at a project summary [9], the brand research [10],
> and the brand strategy suggestion [11] Wolff Olins prepared working with us.
>
> For feedback, please add comments on the Community Review talk page 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Joseph Seddon
> 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 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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
because success comes in different shapes and forms and we should foster
success and value where we find it. The biggest issue is not to be
overwhelmed with the complacency that comes with what is mistaken as the
success of English Wikipedia. Complacency because English Wikipedia could
be much better.

We know our statistics and English Wikipedia is not 50% of our traffic. It
is where over 50% of our resources are spend. It is maintained by a bias
for everything related to what we do in English. We promote Wikipedia as a
tool for university students and its focus is the USA. The reality is that
we need high school students to write articles in most of our other
languages. Oh and do not rely on research; Wikipedia research is biased
because it is almost exclusively English Wikipedia what is studied. Even
when it is not, it relies on studies with the same bias.

When we truly want to be more international, we should focus on raising
money outside of the AngloSaxon countries. The money is there, just
consider known statistics. Spend everything that is raised "elsewhere",
elsewhere and add significant bias where we have the best 'return on
investment'. NB it is my business to know fundraising and we under perform
in the Netherlands by a large margin. There is no "need" to change our
really successful fundraising except when we use it as an instrument to
attract attention for our brands.

Both Wikidata and Commons are English. It is not that there are no projects
that use other languages within these projects but it is dominantly English
in the same way Wikipedia is dominantly English. Giving examples of these
projects is mistaking exceptions for the rule. Case in point; show me all
the Wikidata editors and show me those editors that do not communicate in
English.. show me their success.

When this notion that Wikimedia is English is to be countered, consider how
we can share our resources. For me the best example how we miss the boat is
found in Wikidata; we were promised an official replacement of Listeria.
Listeria is great but not good enough. The promise has not been kept, we
are still pissing in the wind and manually updating lists in the Wikipedias.

Please let us have a hard look at the efficiency at which we "share the sum
of all knowledge". Once the giddiness has left the house, let us work in
earnest and expand the 50% percent of our traffic and serve the underserved.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 06:38, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> 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.  So if we shift towards calling
> things "Wikipedia Foo" instead of "Wikimedia Foo", we will have to go out
> of our way to expand its connotations.  That takes an internal campaign: w
> thoughtful & responsive answers to common questions /concerns.
>
> SJ
>
> P.S. Personally, while these recs encourage keeping the old project names,
> I think Wikipictionary, Wikipews, Wikipedanta and Wikiperversity have a
> chance of becoming even more popular with new readers & contributors.
>
> --
>
> On Fri., Apr. 12, 2019, 11:33 p.m. Andrew Lih, 
> wrote:
>
> > 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 language versions of other projects than Wikipedia were
> > > created relatively regularly and many people who started with
> > > Wikipedia moved on to maintain and develop other projects. Today the
> > > Foundation has all but given up on all other projects except the 3 you
> > > mention below (and, to some extent, Wikisource), Google is taking data
> > > from Wikipedia (but prefers other dictionaries instead of Wikt) and
> > > people barely hide a polite yawn when you talk about the other
> > > projects.
> > >
> >
> > For the record, I was one of the earliest skeptics of Wikinews and was
> one
> > of the first accredited Wikinewsies in 2005. I believed the best way to
> > critically understand its flaws was to actually immerse myself in it. I
> > quickly saw it was not viable, and memorialized my thoughts about it for
> > Harvard Nieman Lab (below). I say this not to brag, but simply to say
> that
> > the "hope" of that era may be overhyped. :)
> >
> >
> >
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-12 Thread Samuel Klein
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.  So if we shift towards calling
things "Wikipedia Foo" instead of "Wikimedia Foo", we will have to go out
of our way to expand its connotations.  That takes an internal campaign: w
thoughtful & responsive answers to common questions /concerns.

SJ

P.S. Personally, while these recs encourage keeping the old project names,
I think Wikipictionary, Wikipews, Wikipedanta and Wikiperversity have a
chance of becoming even more popular with new readers & contributors.

--

On Fri., Apr. 12, 2019, 11:33 p.m. Andrew Lih,  wrote:

> 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 language versions of other projects than Wikipedia were
> > created relatively regularly and many people who started with
> > Wikipedia moved on to maintain and develop other projects. Today the
> > Foundation has all but given up on all other projects except the 3 you
> > mention below (and, to some extent, Wikisource), Google is taking data
> > from Wikipedia (but prefers other dictionaries instead of Wikt) and
> > people barely hide a polite yawn when you talk about the other
> > projects.
> >
>
> For the record, I was one of the earliest skeptics of Wikinews and was one
> of the first accredited Wikinewsies in 2005. I believed the best way to
> critically understand its flaws was to actually immerse myself in it. I
> quickly saw it was not viable, and memorialized my thoughts about it for
> Harvard Nieman Lab (below). I say this not to brag, but simply to say that
> the "hope" of that era may be overhyped. :)
>
>
> https://www.niemanlab.org/2010/02/why-wikipedia-beats-wikinews-as-a-collaborative-journalism-project/
>
>
> > > - We stand on three legs (and more): If there was ever a time that
> > > Wikimedia was more than Wikipedia, it is now. The trio of Wikipedia,
> > > Commons and Wikidata is the bedrock of open knowledge sharing in a way
> > that
> > > was not true even 3 years ago.
> >
> > While that is true, the monolingual nature of the last 2 has left all
> > but the most determined outside this revolution. While not directly
> > relevant for the branding issue, it partially explains why people know
> > about Wikipedia more: it's in their language!
> >
>
> Wait, I'm confused. Are you saying Wikidata is a "monolingual" project? As
> a semantic database, it's perhaps the most multilingual-friendly project we
> have. I've collaborated with Portuguese and French GLAM projects on
> Wikidata because of how good it is at providing an interface for a shared
> data set using the user's native tongue. So I'm eager to hear more about
> why you believe Wikidata is in the "monolingual" bin.
>
>
> > Specialization has clear advantages, but again, is not helping with
> > branding towards the general public and that is our target, not GLAM
> > or photographers.
> >
>
> This is a valid critique, though I'm not sure we've ever put the full force
> of Foundation resources behind providing public awareness for Commons. It's
> mostly been through community-level efforts and SiteNotice banners, to my
> knowledge, for WLM, Commons POTY, Wiki Loves Africa, etc.
>
> Not sure what the point is here. System biases are also obvious in
> > Commons (copyright law) and Wikidata (very specific knowledge is
> > required to understand how data is organized).
> >
>
> I think the point is: add the systemic bias of needing to know how to read
> to the stack of the biases you also list here. There are a multitude of
> challenges, and I think you absolutely win with "understanding copyright"
> as the biggest user challenge we have. :)
>
>
> > This war is specific to English Wikipedia and a few other wikis
> > (admittedly, rather larger ones). Smaller communities have already
> > largely embraced Wikidata in infoboxes and elsewhere. This has not
> > changed how they represent themselves and I believe that the same
> > holds true for the renaming.
> >
>
> Oh yes, there are many folks highly envious of Basque and Catalan Wikipedia
> where Wikidata integration is used effectively on a large scale.
>
>
> > Also, I believe it is mistaken to think of the branding proposal as a
> > single, monolithic, yes-or-no proposal. It is rather a series of
> > proposals, some easier and some more complicated to implement. Each
> > should be analyzed independently for its own merits.
> >
>
> Agree. We won't know until/if it happens. I simply wanted to make sure a
> broad set of concerns were being incorporated into the risk assessment.
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-12 Thread Andrew Lih
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 language versions of other projects than Wikipedia were
> created relatively regularly and many people who started with
> Wikipedia moved on to maintain and develop other projects. Today the
> Foundation has all but given up on all other projects except the 3 you
> mention below (and, to some extent, Wikisource), Google is taking data
> from Wikipedia (but prefers other dictionaries instead of Wikt) and
> people barely hide a polite yawn when you talk about the other
> projects.
>

For the record, I was one of the earliest skeptics of Wikinews and was one
of the first accredited Wikinewsies in 2005. I believed the best way to
critically understand its flaws was to actually immerse myself in it. I
quickly saw it was not viable, and memorialized my thoughts about it for
Harvard Nieman Lab (below). I say this not to brag, but simply to say that
the "hope" of that era may be overhyped. :)

https://www.niemanlab.org/2010/02/why-wikipedia-beats-wikinews-as-a-collaborative-journalism-project/


> > - We stand on three legs (and more): If there was ever a time that
> > Wikimedia was more than Wikipedia, it is now. The trio of Wikipedia,
> > Commons and Wikidata is the bedrock of open knowledge sharing in a way
> that
> > was not true even 3 years ago.
>
> While that is true, the monolingual nature of the last 2 has left all
> but the most determined outside this revolution. While not directly
> relevant for the branding issue, it partially explains why people know
> about Wikipedia more: it's in their language!
>

Wait, I'm confused. Are you saying Wikidata is a "monolingual" project? As
a semantic database, it's perhaps the most multilingual-friendly project we
have. I've collaborated with Portuguese and French GLAM projects on
Wikidata because of how good it is at providing an interface for a shared
data set using the user's native tongue. So I'm eager to hear more about
why you believe Wikidata is in the "monolingual" bin.


> Specialization has clear advantages, but again, is not helping with
> branding towards the general public and that is our target, not GLAM
> or photographers.
>

This is a valid critique, though I'm not sure we've ever put the full force
of Foundation resources behind providing public awareness for Commons. It's
mostly been through community-level efforts and SiteNotice banners, to my
knowledge, for WLM, Commons POTY, Wiki Loves Africa, etc.

Not sure what the point is here. System biases are also obvious in
> Commons (copyright law) and Wikidata (very specific knowledge is
> required to understand how data is organized).
>

I think the point is: add the systemic bias of needing to know how to read
to the stack of the biases you also list here. There are a multitude of
challenges, and I think you absolutely win with "understanding copyright"
as the biggest user challenge we have. :)


> This war is specific to English Wikipedia and a few other wikis
> (admittedly, rather larger ones). Smaller communities have already
> largely embraced Wikidata in infoboxes and elsewhere. This has not
> changed how they represent themselves and I believe that the same
> holds true for the renaming.
>

Oh yes, there are many folks highly envious of Basque and Catalan Wikipedia
where Wikidata integration is used effectively on a large scale.


> Also, I believe it is mistaken to think of the branding proposal as a
> single, monolithic, yes-or-no proposal. It is rather a series of
> proposals, some easier and some more complicated to implement. Each
> should be analyzed independently for its own merits.
>

Agree. We won't know until/if it happens. I simply wanted to make sure a
broad set of concerns were being incorporated into the risk assessment.

Thanks
-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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-12 Thread Paulo Santos Perneta
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 process?

Why is this being planned to be presented before the BoT, without any
meaningful discussion of such a dramatic change at the projects where it
will have its impact?

Regards,
Paulo

[1] -
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/03#WMF_proposal_would_rename_%22Wikimedia_Commons%22_to_%22Wikicommons%22

Elena Lappen  escreveu no dia terça, 9/04/2019 à(s)
09:58:

> 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 page last week [1], but wanted
> to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference session
> to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and provide
> feedback.
>
> When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
>
> Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using your
> closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
>
> If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no
> problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the link on
> the talk page afterwards.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Elena
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review#Invitation_to_join_a_video_conference_presentation
>
>
> [2] https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers
>
>
> --
> Elena Lappen
> Community Relations Specialist
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:14 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
> > Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
> >
> > Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the
> > world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to
> get
> > a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and evaluate
> > public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
> >
> > We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part of
> > our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was
> commissioned
> > by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and
> > directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected
> > perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China,
> > Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and
> > values.
> >
> > The study revealed some interesting trends:
> >
> > - Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North
> America.
> >
> > - Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5] and
> is
> > fast growing.
> >
> > - There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower. For
> > example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%, Wikidata
> at
> > 20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
> >
> > - There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia. Respondents
> > reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its
> relationship
> > to Wikipedia.
> >
> > - In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed a
> high
> > level of support for our mission.
> >
> > Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also made a
> > strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The
> > suggestions include:
> >
> > - Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
> >
> > - Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from Wikipedia to
> > drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller projects.
> >
> > - Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons
> > which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent with
> > other projects.
> >
> > - Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate groups
> > that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
> >
> > - Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to reassert
> the
> > connections between projects (e.g. “__ - A Wikipedia project”).
> >
> > This is not a new idea.[7][8]
> >
> > By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared among the communities who give
> > them meaning. So in considering this change, the Wikimedia Foundation is
> > collecting feedback from across our communities. Our goal is to speak
> with
> > more than 80% of affiliates and as many individual 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-11 Thread Jane Darnell
I know this first-hand,
> having headed video initiatives or having students consistently reverted
> when adding multimedia.) Like it or not, there is an ingrained culture of
> text-heavy articles being the dominant mode for acceptable encyclopedic
> content which stands as a blocker for our evolution.
> 
> What does this have to do with the branding exercise? The internal risk is
> that by promoting "Wikipedia" as not just the flagship project but the
> dominant overarching identity of our work, multimedia initiatives and new
> forms of knowledge will be even more suppressed within the movement and
> de-prioritized. We know Youtube is the number one how-to site on the
> Internet with people learning by watching and listening, without even
> needing to know how to read. Indicating that the written mode of knowledge
> is the dominant thrust of the movement is antithetical to all we know about
> what is going on with mobiles, video content and visual learning. It risks
> being the wrong message at the wrong time.
> 
> - Should Wikipedia culture be the movement's culture? Rebranding everything
> as "Wikipedia" would effectively do this, so we need to think carefully.
> Already there is an underground war regarding Wikidata use in Wikipedia
> information boxes, and whether "control" of that data should be ceded from
> a language-specific Wikipedia edition to the language-neutral, but emerging
> Wikidata project. There is also an underground war about short descriptions
> in English Wikipedia versus using the collaboratively edited descriptions
> in Wikidata. The risk is that adopting "Wikipedia" as the unified brand
> could very well undermine our community spirit of coming together for
> solutions by, intentionally or not, blessing an entrenched approach above
> all others.
> 
> I don't claim to have the answer, but I'm worried by the lack of thoughtful
> consideration that a re-branding would have on our movement internally.
> Much of this is because our own community communications channels have
> broken down, and we don't have great ways for deliberation. I hope we have
> more considered conversation and not rush into any decisions on this.
> 
> -Andrew
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:14 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I also think that there are some branding issues, but let me focus just in
>> the opposite way: Wikimedia is not a bug, is a feature. When you say you
>> represent WikiMedia, then someone asks about why 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 other hand, think that maybe in 2022 (for example) we could create
>> 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 calling ourselves
>> The Wikivideo Foundation? I think that being Wikimedia gives us better
>> opportunities to make better decisions on 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 
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:56 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".
>>>> "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 aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about
>> this
>>> issue, albeit at a broader level :)
>>> 
>>> For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is
>>> looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need
>> to
>>> support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)
>> 
>> 
>> One would hope that both that group as well as others will

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-10 Thread Strainu
t;
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I also think that there are some branding issues, but let me focus just in
> > the opposite way: Wikimedia is not a bug, is a feature. When you say you
> > represent WikiMedia, then someone asks about why 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 other hand, think that maybe in 2022 (for example) we could create
> > 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 calling ourselves
> > The Wikivideo Foundation? I think that being Wikimedia gives us better
> > opportunities to make better decisions on 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 
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:56 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".
> > > > "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 aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about
> > this
> > > issue, albeit at a broader level :)
> > >
> > > For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is
> > > looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need
> > to
> > > support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)
> >
> >
> > One would hope that both that group as well as others will be informed and
> > will take into account the results of the study, which confirm anecdotic
> > data that almost anyone doing outreach knows.
> >
> > This is not a matter to be left at  the foundation's sole discretion
> > (although I personally approve the proposals to various degrees).
> >
> > Strainu
> >
> > >
> > > You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or
> > indeed
> > > the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any
> > > of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their
> > > current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much
> > more
> > > profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently
> > > exist.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > (1)
> > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_
> > > Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities#Scoping_questions
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > ___
> > 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,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-10 Thread Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
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.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-10 Thread Michael Maggs
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 non-WMF-wikis.
> ___
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-10 Thread Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
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://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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-10 Thread James Salsman
 prominent museum collections
> > manager who said her goal was to eliminate their own local metadata
> > vocabulary in favor of using all Wikidata Q numbers instead. We are
> > reaching a new public with Commons and Wikidata that many Wikipedians, and
> > WMF employees, may not be aware of.
> >
> > - Wikipedia has a systemic bias: The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that
> > you have to know how to read. This sounds ridiculously obvious but
> > consider: in developing countries, we're often looking at a maximum 70%
> > literacy rate. That's a big hurdle for our strategic goal of knowledge
> > equity. We have yet to tap into video, multimedia, interactive and audio
> > content as a major mode of knowledge sharing. What of oral histories or
> > nontraditional/non-academic forms of human knowledge? The Wikipedia
> > community has been neglectful or outright hostile to the addition and use
> > of video and multimedia content in these areas. (I know this first-hand,
> > having headed video initiatives or having students consistently reverted
> > when adding multimedia.) Like it or not, there is an ingrained culture of
> > text-heavy articles being the dominant mode for acceptable encyclopedic
> > content which stands as a blocker for our evolution.
> >
> > What does this have to do with the branding exercise? The internal risk is
> > that by promoting "Wikipedia" as not just the flagship project but the
> > dominant overarching identity of our work, multimedia initiatives and new
> > forms of knowledge will be even more suppressed within the movement and
> > de-prioritized. We know Youtube is the number one how-to site on the
> > Internet with people learning by watching and listening, without even
> > needing to know how to read. Indicating that the written mode of knowledge
> > is the dominant thrust of the movement is antithetical to all we know about
> > what is going on with mobiles, video content and visual learning. It risks
> > being the wrong message at the wrong time.
> >
> > - Should Wikipedia culture be the movement's culture? Rebranding everything
> > as "Wikipedia" would effectively do this, so we need to think carefully.
> > Already there is an underground war regarding Wikidata use in Wikipedia
> > information boxes, and whether "control" of that data should be ceded from
> > a language-specific Wikipedia edition to the language-neutral, but emerging
> > Wikidata project. There is also an underground war about short descriptions
> > in English Wikipedia versus using the collaboratively edited descriptions
> > in Wikidata. The risk is that adopting "Wikipedia" as the unified brand
> > could very well undermine our community spirit of coming together for
> > solutions by, intentionally or not, blessing an entrenched approach above
> > all others.
> >
> > I don't claim to have the answer, but I'm worried by the lack of thoughtful
> > consideration that a re-branding would have on our movement internally.
> > Much of this is because our own community communications channels have
> > broken down, and we don't have great ways for deliberation. I hope we have
> > more considered conversation and not rush into any decisions on this.
> >
> > -Andrew
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:14 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> > galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I also think that there are some branding issues, but let me focus just in
> >> the opposite way: Wikimedia is not a bug, is a feature. When you say you
> >> represent WikiMedia, then someone asks about why 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 other hand, think that maybe in 2022 (for example) we could create
> >> 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 calling ourselves
> >> The Wikivideo Foundation? I think that being Wikimedia gives us better
> >> opportunities to make better decisions on 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 a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-10 Thread Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l
big hurdle for our strategic goal of knowledge
> equity. We have yet to tap into video, multimedia, interactive and audio
> content as a major mode of knowledge sharing. What of oral histories or
> nontraditional/non-academic forms of human knowledge? The Wikipedia
> community has been neglectful or outright hostile to the addition and use
> of video and multimedia content in these areas. (I know this first-hand,
> having headed video initiatives or having students consistently reverted
> when adding multimedia.) Like it or not, there is an ingrained culture of
> text-heavy articles being the dominant mode for acceptable encyclopedic
> content which stands as a blocker for our evolution.
> 
> What does this have to do with the branding exercise? The internal risk is
> that by promoting "Wikipedia" as not just the flagship project but the
> dominant overarching identity of our work, multimedia initiatives and new
> forms of knowledge will be even more suppressed within the movement and
> de-prioritized. We know Youtube is the number one how-to site on the
> Internet with people learning by watching and listening, without even
> needing to know how to read. Indicating that the written mode of knowledge
> is the dominant thrust of the movement is antithetical to all we know about
> what is going on with mobiles, video content and visual learning. It risks
> being the wrong message at the wrong time.
> 
> - Should Wikipedia culture be the movement's culture? Rebranding everything
> as "Wikipedia" would effectively do this, so we need to think carefully.
> Already there is an underground war regarding Wikidata use in Wikipedia
> information boxes, and whether "control" of that data should be ceded from
> a language-specific Wikipedia edition to the language-neutral, but emerging
> Wikidata project. There is also an underground war about short descriptions
> in English Wikipedia versus using the collaboratively edited descriptions
> in Wikidata. The risk is that adopting "Wikipedia" as the unified brand
> could very well undermine our community spirit of coming together for
> solutions by, intentionally or not, blessing an entrenched approach above
> all others.
> 
> I don't claim to have the answer, but I'm worried by the lack of thoughtful
> consideration that a re-branding would have on our movement internally.
> Much of this is because our own community communications channels have
> broken down, and we don't have great ways for deliberation. I hope we have
> more considered conversation and not rush into any decisions on this.
> 
> -Andrew
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:14 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I also think that there are some branding issues, but let me focus just in
>> the opposite way: Wikimedia is not a bug, is a feature. When you say you
>> represent WikiMedia, then someone asks about why 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 other hand, think that maybe in 2022 (for example) we could create
>> 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 calling ourselves
>> The Wikivideo Foundation? I think that being Wikimedia gives us better
>> opportunities to make better decisions on 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 
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:56 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".
>>>> "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 aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about
>> th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-10 Thread Andrew Lih
d new
forms of knowledge will be even more suppressed within the movement and
de-prioritized. We know Youtube is the number one how-to site on the
Internet with people learning by watching and listening, without even
needing to know how to read. Indicating that the written mode of knowledge
is the dominant thrust of the movement is antithetical to all we know about
what is going on with mobiles, video content and visual learning. It risks
being the wrong message at the wrong time.

- Should Wikipedia culture be the movement's culture? Rebranding everything
as "Wikipedia" would effectively do this, so we need to think carefully.
Already there is an underground war regarding Wikidata use in Wikipedia
information boxes, and whether "control" of that data should be ceded from
a language-specific Wikipedia edition to the language-neutral, but emerging
Wikidata project. There is also an underground war about short descriptions
in English Wikipedia versus using the collaboratively edited descriptions
in Wikidata. The risk is that adopting "Wikipedia" as the unified brand
could very well undermine our community spirit of coming together for
solutions by, intentionally or not, blessing an entrenched approach above
all others.

I don't claim to have the answer, but I'm worried by the lack of thoughtful
consideration that a re-branding would have on our movement internally.
Much of this is because our own community communications channels have
broken down, and we don't have great ways for deliberation. I hope we have
more considered conversation and not rush into any decisions on this.

-Andrew


On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:14 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I also think that there are some branding issues, but let me focus just in
> the opposite way: Wikimedia is not a bug, is a feature. When you say you
> represent WikiMedia, then someone asks about why 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 other hand, think that maybe in 2022 (for example) we could create
> 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 calling ourselves
> The Wikivideo Foundation? I think that being Wikimedia gives us better
> opportunities to make better decisions on 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 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:56 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".
> > > "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 aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about
> this
> > issue, albeit at a broader level :)
> >
> > For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is
> > looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need
> to
> > support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)
>
>
> One would hope that both that group as well as others will be informed and
> will take into account the results of the study, which confirm anecdotic
> data that almost anyone doing outreach knows.
>
> This is not a matter to be left at  the foundation's sole discretion
> (although I personally approve the proposals to various degrees).
>
> Strainu
>
> >
> > You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or
> indeed
> > the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any
> > of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their
> > current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much
> more
> > profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently
> > exist.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > (1)
> >
> https://

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-10 Thread camelia boban
Absolutely agree with Galder.
WikiMedia is not only Wikipedia. Is not just an encyclopedia, but all other
wiki projects.
And is also a movement for openness, a philosophy, a way to do things.
Means collaborations, partners, a lot of other staffs than an encyclopedia
doesn't include.

Camelia


--
*Camelia Boban*

*| Java EE Developer |*
*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation
Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030
Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*
WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
M. +39 3383385545
camelia.bo...@gmail.com
*Aissa Technologies* <http://aissatechnologies.eu/>* | *Twitter
<https://twitter.com/cameliaboban> *|* *LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122>*
*Wikipedia <https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban> **| **WikiDonne
UG <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne>* | *WikiDonne Project*
<https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne>










Il giorno mer 10 apr 2019 alle ore 11:14 Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> ha scritto:

> I also think that there are some branding issues, but let me focus just in
> the opposite way: Wikimedia is not a bug, is a feature. When you say you
> represent WikiMedia, then someone asks about why 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 other hand, think that maybe in 2022 (for example) we could create
> 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 calling ourselves
> The Wikivideo Foundation? I think that being Wikimedia gives us better
> opportunities to make better decisions on 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 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:56 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".
> > > "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 aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about
> this
> > issue, albeit at a broader level :)
> >
> > For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is
> > looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need
> to
> > support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)
>
>
> One would hope that both that group as well as others will be informed and
> will take into account the results of the study, which confirm anecdotic
> data that almost anyone doing outreach knows.
>
> This is not a matter to be left at  the foundation's sole discretion
> (although I personally approve the proposals to various degrees).
>
> Strainu
>
> >
> > You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or
> indeed
> > the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any
> > of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their
> > current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much
> more
> > profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently
> > exist.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > (1)
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_
> > Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities#Scoping_questions
> > ___
> > 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,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsub

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-10 Thread Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
I also think that there are some branding issues, but let me focus just in the 
opposite way: Wikimedia is not a bug, is a feature. When you say you represent 
WikiMedia, then someone asks about why 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 other hand, think that maybe in 2022 (for example) we could create 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 calling ourselves The Wikivideo Foundation? I 
think that being Wikimedia gives us better opportunities to make better 
decisions on 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 
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:56 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".
> > "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 aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about this
> issue, albeit at a broader level :)
>
> For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is
> looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need to
> support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)


One would hope that both that group as well as others will be informed and
will take into account the results of the study, which confirm anecdotic
data that almost anyone doing outreach knows.

This is not a matter to be left at  the foundation's sole discretion
(although I personally approve the proposals to various degrees).

Strainu

>
> You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or indeed
> the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any
> of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their
> current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much more
> profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently
> exist.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> (1)
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_
> Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities#Scoping_questions
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-10 Thread Strainu
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 "user group" as a technical term in MediaWiki.
> >
>
> You may be aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about this
> issue, albeit at a broader level :)
>
> For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is
> looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need to
> support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)


One would hope that both that group as well as others will be informed and
will take into account the results of the study, which confirm anecdotic
data that almost anyone doing outreach knows.

This is not a matter to be left at  the foundation's sole discretion
(although I personally approve the proposals to various degrees).

Strainu

>
> You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or indeed
> the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any
> of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their
> current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much more
> profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently
> exist.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> (1)
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_
> Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities#Scoping_questions
> ___
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-10 Thread Ziko van Dijk
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 um 18:40 Uhr schrieb Chris Keating
:
>
> > 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 aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about this
> issue, albeit at a broader level :)
>
> For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is
> looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need to
> support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)
>
> You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or indeed
> the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any
> of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their
> current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much more
> profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently
> exist.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> (1)
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities#Scoping_questions
> ___
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
* The global brand will make it even easier to forget who we are at the
Foundation. This is exactly what is to be prevented. The existing bias is
already too big.
* Not necessarily sure but it is inevitable because you say that is who we
are.

When we are to do better in our mission, we should be subject driven not
article driven.
Thanks but no thanks,
   GerardM

On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 18:17, Joseph Seddon  wrote:

> From what I know:
> * The global brand won't stop Wikidata being Wikidata.
> * Wikimedia Russia won't necessarily become Wikipedia Russia
>
> Seddon
>
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 4:56 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Think of Wikipedia Russia convincing Russian 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 2030 goals
> >
> >
> >
> > What real life problems would there be?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Apr 9, 2019, at 6:11 AM, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> > galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The idea of rebranding Wikimedia to Wikipedia will create FAR more
> > problems than it solves, specially 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
> > 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 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
> > > prevent other possible approaches.
> > >
> > > Using Wikipedia to define what Wikimedia does, enforces existing bias
> and
> > > hinders our mission.
> > > Thanks,
> > > GerardM
> > >
> > > On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 11:25, James Salsman  wrote:
> > >
> > >> 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 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 page last week [1], but
> > >> wanted
> > >>> to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference
> > >> session
> > >>> to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and
> > >> provide
> > >>> feedback.
> > >>>
> > >>> When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
> > >>>
> > >>> Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using
> your
> > >>> closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
> > >>>
> > >>> If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no
> > >>> problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the
> link
> > on
> > >>> the talk page afterwards.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>>
> > >>> Elena
> > >>>
> > >>> [1]
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review#Invitation_to_join_a_video_conference_presentation
> &g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
From the first text:

" Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate groups that 
use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia."

I also think that Wikipedia is a much stronger brand than Wikimedia is, but I 
have been talking about this issue the last weeks in different places with way 
very different people and they all say that they will have real problems if 
they change the name from Wikimedia to Wikipedia. Legal issues will be more 
common if the name convention is changed from Wikimedia to Wikipedia, as you 
can be responsible (country law's depending) of what 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 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 aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about this
issue, albeit at a broader level :)

For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is
looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need to
support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)

You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or indeed
the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any
of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their
current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much more
profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently
exist.

Thanks,

Chris



(1)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities#Scoping_questions
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Oscar Costero
Nonetheless, the 'what ifs' are worrisome is the proposal is accepted.
People (govts, enterprises, etc) would think it's a mistake with the name
Wikimedia and incorrectly deduce (after some Google search on their part)
that the name is Wikipedia Russia, not Wikimedia Russia.

El mar., 9 abr. 2019 a las 12:17, Joseph Seddon ()
escribió:

> From what I know:
> * The global brand won't stop Wikidata being Wikidata.
> * Wikimedia Russia won't necessarily become Wikipedia Russia
>
> Seddon
>
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 4:56 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Think of Wikipedia Russia convincing Russian 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 2030 goals
> >
> >
> >
> > What real life problems would there be?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Apr 9, 2019, at 6:11 AM, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> > galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The idea of rebranding Wikimedia to Wikipedia will create FAR more
> > problems than it solves, specially 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
> > 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 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
> > > prevent other possible approaches.
> > >
> > > Using Wikipedia to define what Wikimedia does, enforces existing bias
> and
> > > hinders our mission.
> > > Thanks,
> > > GerardM
> > >
> > > On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 11:25, James Salsman  wrote:
> > >
> > >> 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 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 page last week [1], but
> > >> wanted
> > >>> to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference
> > >> session
> > >>> to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and
> > >> provide
> > >>> feedback.
> > >>>
> > >>> When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
> > >>>
> > >>> Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using
> your
> > >>> closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
> > >>>
> > >>> If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no
> > >>> problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the
> link
> > on
> > >>> the talk page afterwards.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>>
> > >>> Elena
> > >>>
> > >>> [1]
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review#Invitation_to_join_a_video_conference_presentation
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> [2] https://www.bluejeans.com/premi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Chris Keating
> 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 aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about this
issue, albeit at a broader level :)

For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is
looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need to
support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)

You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or indeed
the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any
of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their
current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much more
profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently
exist.

Thanks,

Chris



(1)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities#Scoping_questions
___
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Ziko van Dijk
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.
Kind regards
Ziko


Am Di., 9. Apr. 2019 um 18:17 Uhr schrieb Joseph Seddon :
>
> From what I know:
> * The global brand won't stop Wikidata being Wikidata.
> * Wikimedia Russia won't necessarily become Wikipedia Russia
>
> Seddon
>
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 4:56 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Think of Wikipedia Russia convincing Russian 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 2030 goals
> >
> >
> >
> > What real life problems would there be?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Apr 9, 2019, at 6:11 AM, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> > galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The idea of rebranding Wikimedia to Wikipedia will create FAR more
> > problems than it solves, specially 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
> > 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 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
> > > prevent other possible approaches.
> > >
> > > Using Wikipedia to define what Wikimedia does, enforces existing bias and
> > > hinders our mission.
> > > Thanks,
> > > GerardM
> > >
> > > On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 11:25, James Salsman  wrote:
> > >
> > >> 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 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 page last week [1], but
> > >> wanted
> > >>> to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference
> > >> session
> > >>> to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and
> > >> provide
> > >>> feedback.
> > >>>
> > >>> When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
> > >>>
> > >>> Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using your
> > >>> closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
> > >>>
> > >>> If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no
> > >>> problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the link
> > on
> > >>> the talk page afterwards.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>>
> > >>> Elena
> > >>>
> > >>> [1]
> > >>>
> > >>
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review#Invitation_to_join_a_video_conference_presentation
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>&g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Joseph Seddon
From what I know:
* The global brand won't stop Wikidata being Wikidata.
* Wikimedia Russia won't necessarily become Wikipedia Russia

Seddon

On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 4:56 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Think of Wikipedia Russia convincing Russian 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 2030 goals
>
>
>
> What real life problems would there be?
>
>
>
> On Apr 9, 2019, at 6:11 AM, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The idea of rebranding Wikimedia to Wikipedia will create FAR more
> problems than it solves, specially 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
> 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 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
> > prevent other possible approaches.
> >
> > Using Wikipedia to define what Wikimedia does, enforces existing bias and
> > hinders our mission.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 11:25, James Salsman  wrote:
> >
> >> 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 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 page last week [1], but
> >> wanted
> >>> to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference
> >> session
> >>> to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and
> >> provide
> >>> feedback.
> >>>
> >>> When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
> >>>
> >>> Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using your
> >>> closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
> >>>
> >>> If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no
> >>> problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the link
> on
> >>> the talk page afterwards.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Elena
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review#Invitation_to_join_a_video_conference_presentation
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [2] https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Elena Lappen
> >>> Community Relations Specialist
> >>> Wikimedia Foundation
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:14 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
> >>>> Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
> >>>>
> >>>> Recently, the Wi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
Think of Wikipedia Russia convincing Russian 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 2030 goals



What real life problems would there be?



On Apr 9, 2019, at 6:11 AM, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga  
wrote:

> The idea of rebranding Wikimedia to Wikipedia will create FAR more problems 
> than it solves, specially 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 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 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
> prevent other possible approaches.
>
> Using Wikipedia to define what Wikimedia does, enforces existing bias and
> hinders our mission.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 11:25, James Salsman  wrote:
>
>> 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 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 page last week [1], but
>> wanted
>>> to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference
>> session
>>> to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and
>> provide
>>> feedback.
>>>
>>> When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
>>>
>>> Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using your
>>> closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
>>>
>>> If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no
>>> problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the link on
>>> the talk page afterwards.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Elena
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review#Invitation_to_join_a_video_conference_presentation
>>>
>>>
>>> [2] https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Elena Lappen
>>> Community Relations Specialist
>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:14 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
>>>> Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
>>>>
>>>> Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the
>>>> world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to
>> get
>>>> a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and
>> evaluate
>>>> public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
>>>>
>>>> We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part
>> of
>>>> our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was
>> commissioned
>>>> by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and
>>>> directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected
>>>> perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China,
>>>> Nig

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Wikipedia is one brand. In some of our "markets" Wikibooks is of greater
relevance. We destroy important brands that are important in the
alphabetisation of real people.

When you think that all there is is Wikipedia. Fine but you are wrong.
Commons will gain relevance because of this !@#$$% legislation that makes
copyright even more problematic. Commons is the biggest public domain only
repository of illustrations. Given that with the Wikidatafication it
becomes easier to open up the Commons content, we have yet another brand
that is not Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is about articles and not about subjects. Wikidata is about
subjects, Commons is about subjects and all Wikipedias together are about
subjects. In the current understanding of most people Wikipedia is a single
entity never mind the language. It is this approach, this bias that will
hurt us badly, it already does.

So yes, real life problems.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 16:21, Benjamin Ikuta  wrote:

>
>
> What real life problems would there be?
>
>
>
> On Apr 9, 2019, at 6:11 AM, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The idea of rebranding Wikimedia to Wikipedia will create FAR more
> problems than it solves, specially 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
> 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 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
> > prevent other possible approaches.
> >
> > Using Wikipedia to define what Wikimedia does, enforces existing bias and
> > hinders our mission.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 11:25, James Salsman  wrote:
> >
> >> 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 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 page last week [1], but
> >> wanted
> >>> to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference
> >> session
> >>> to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and
> >> provide
> >>> feedback.
> >>>
> >>> When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
> >>>
> >>> Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using your
> >>> closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
> >>>
> >>> If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no
> >>> problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the link
> on
> >>> the talk page afterwards.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Elena
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review#Invitation_to_join_a_video_conference_presentation
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [2] https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Elena Lappen
> >>> Community Relations Specialist
> >>> Wikimedia Foundation
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:14 PM Zack McCune 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> :: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to
> >> ensure
> >>>> w

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Benjamin Ikuta


What real life problems would there be? 



On Apr 9, 2019, at 6:11 AM, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga  
wrote:

> The idea of rebranding Wikimedia to Wikipedia will create FAR more problems 
> than it solves, specially 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 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 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
> prevent other possible approaches.
> 
> Using Wikipedia to define what Wikimedia does, enforces existing bias and
> hinders our mission.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
> 
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 11:25, James Salsman  wrote:
> 
>> 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 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 page last week [1], but
>> wanted
>>> to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference
>> session
>>> to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and
>> provide
>>> feedback.
>>> 
>>> When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
>>> 
>>> Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using your
>>> closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
>>> 
>>> If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no
>>> problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the link on
>>> the talk page afterwards.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Elena
>>> 
>>> [1]
>>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review#Invitation_to_join_a_video_conference_presentation
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [2] https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Elena Lappen
>>> Community Relations Specialist
>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:14 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
>>>> Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
>>>> 
>>>> Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the
>>>> world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to
>> get
>>>> a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and
>> evaluate
>>>> public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
>>>> 
>>>> We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part
>> of
>>>> our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was
>> commissioned
>>>> by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and
>>>> directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected
>>>> perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China,
>>>> Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and
>>>> values.
>>>> 
>>>> The study revealed some interesting trends:
>>>> 
>>>> - Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North
>> America.
>>&g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
The idea of rebranding Wikimedia to Wikipedia will create FAR more problems 
than it solves, specially 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 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 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
prevent other possible approaches.

Using Wikipedia to define what Wikimedia does, enforces existing bias and
hinders our mission.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 11:25, James Salsman  wrote:

> 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 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 page last week [1], but
> wanted
> > to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference
> session
> > to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and
> provide
> > feedback.
> >
> > When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
> >
> > Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using your
> > closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
> >
> > If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no
> > problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the link on
> > the talk page afterwards.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Elena
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review#Invitation_to_join_a_video_conference_presentation
> >
> >
> > [2] https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers
> >
> >
> > --
> > Elena Lappen
> > Community Relations Specialist
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:14 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
> > > Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
> > >
> > > Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the
> > > world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to
> get
> > > a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and
> evaluate
> > > public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
> > >
> > > We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part
> of
> > > our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was
> commissioned
> > > by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and
> > > directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected
> > > perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China,
> > > Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and
> > > values.
> > >
> > > The study revealed some interesting trends:
> > >
> > > - Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North
> America.
> > >
> > > - Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5]
> and is
> > > fast growing.
> > >
> > > - There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower.
> For
> > > example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%,
> Wikidata at
> > > 20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
> > >
> > > - There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia.
> Respondents
> > > reported they had either not heard of it,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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
prevent other possible approaches.

Using Wikipedia to define what Wikimedia does, enforces existing bias and
hinders our mission.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 11:25, James Salsman  wrote:

> 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 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 page last week [1], but
> wanted
> > to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference
> session
> > to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and
> provide
> > feedback.
> >
> > When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
> >
> > Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using your
> > closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
> >
> > If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no
> > problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the link on
> > the talk page afterwards.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Elena
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review#Invitation_to_join_a_video_conference_presentation
> >
> >
> > [2] https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers
> >
> >
> > --
> > Elena Lappen
> > Community Relations Specialist
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:14 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
> > > Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
> > >
> > > Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the
> > > world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to
> get
> > > a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and
> evaluate
> > > public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
> > >
> > > We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part
> of
> > > our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was
> commissioned
> > > by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and
> > > directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected
> > > perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China,
> > > Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and
> > > values.
> > >
> > > The study revealed some interesting trends:
> > >
> > > - Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North
> America.
> > >
> > > - Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5]
> and is
> > > fast growing.
> > >
> > > - There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower.
> For
> > > example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%,
> Wikidata at
> > > 20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
> > >
> > > - There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia.
> Respondents
> > > reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its
> relationship
> > > to Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > - In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed a
> high
> > > level of support for our mission.
> > >
> > > Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also made
> a
> > > strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The
> > > suggestions include:
> > >
> > > - Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
> > >
> > > - Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from Wikipedia
> to
> > > drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller projects.
> > >
> > > - Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia
> Commons
> > > which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent
> with
> > > other projects.
> > >
> > > - Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate
> groups
> > > that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
> > >
> > > - Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to
> reassert the
> > > connections between projects (e.g. “__ - A Wikipedia project”).
> > >
> > > This is not a new idea.[7][8]
> > >
> > > By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread James Salsman
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 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 page last week [1], but wanted
> to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference session
> to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and provide
> feedback.
>
> When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
>
> Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using your
> closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
>
> If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no
> problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the link on
> the talk page afterwards.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Elena
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review#Invitation_to_join_a_video_conference_presentation
>
>
> [2] https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers
>
>
> --
> Elena Lappen
> Community Relations Specialist
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:14 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
> > Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
> >
> > Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the
> > world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to get
> > a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and evaluate
> > public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
> >
> > We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part of
> > our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was commissioned
> > by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and
> > directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected
> > perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China,
> > Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and
> > values.
> >
> > The study revealed some interesting trends:
> >
> > - Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North America.
> >
> > - Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5] and is
> > fast growing.
> >
> > - There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower. For
> > example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%, Wikidata at
> > 20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
> >
> > - There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia. Respondents
> > reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its relationship
> > to Wikipedia.
> >
> > - In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed a high
> > level of support for our mission.
> >
> > Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also made a
> > strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The
> > suggestions include:
> >
> > - Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
> >
> > - Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from Wikipedia to
> > drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller projects.
> >
> > - Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons
> > which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent with
> > other projects.
> >
> > - Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate groups
> > that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
> >
> > - Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to reassert the
> > connections between projects (e.g. “__ - A Wikipedia project”).
> >
> > This is not a new idea.[7][8]
> >
> > By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared among the communities who give
> > them meaning. So in considering this change, the Wikimedia Foundation is
> > collecting feedback from across our communities. Our goal is to speak with
> > more than 80% of affiliates and as many individual contributors as possible
> > before May 2019, when we will offer the Board of Trustees a summary of
> > community response.
> >
> > We invite you to look at a project summary [9], the brand research [10],
> > and the brand strategy suggestion [11] Wolff Olins prepared working with
> > us.
> >
> > For feedback, please add comments on the Community Review talk page [12] or
> > email brandproj...@wikimedia.org with direct feedback. You can also use
> > either of these channels to request to join a group meeting.
> >
> > We know this is 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Elena Lappen
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 page last week [1], but wanted
to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference session
to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and provide
feedback.

When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.

Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using your
closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.

If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no
problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the link on
the talk page afterwards.


Thanks,

Elena

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review#Invitation_to_join_a_video_conference_presentation


[2] https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers


--
Elena Lappen
Community Relations Specialist
Wikimedia Foundation




On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:14 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
> Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
>
> Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the
> world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to get
> a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and evaluate
> public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
>
> We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part of
> our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was commissioned
> by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and
> directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected
> perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China,
> Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and
> values.
>
> The study revealed some interesting trends:
>
> - Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North America.
>
> - Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5] and is
> fast growing.
>
> - There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower. For
> example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%, Wikidata at
> 20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
>
> - There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia. Respondents
> reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its relationship
> to Wikipedia.
>
> - In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed a high
> level of support for our mission.
>
> Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also made a
> strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The
> suggestions include:
>
> - Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
>
> - Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from Wikipedia to
> drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller projects.
>
> - Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons
> which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent with
> other projects.
>
> - Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate groups
> that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
>
> - Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to reassert the
> connections between projects (e.g. “__ - A Wikipedia project”).
>
> This is not a new idea.[7][8]
>
> By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared among the communities who give
> them meaning. So in considering this change, the Wikimedia Foundation is
> collecting feedback from across our communities. Our goal is to speak with
> more than 80% of affiliates and as many individual contributors as possible
> before May 2019, when we will offer the Board of Trustees a summary of
> community response.
>
> We invite you to look at a project summary [9], the brand research [10],
> and the brand strategy suggestion [11] Wolff Olins prepared working with
> us.
>
> For feedback, please add comments on the Community Review talk page [12] or
> email brandproj...@wikimedia.org with direct feedback. You can also use
> either of these channels to request to join a group meeting.
>
> We know this is big topic and we’re excited to hear from you!
>
>
> - Zack McCune and the Wikimedia Foundation Communications department
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-brands/
>
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
>
> [3] https://www.wolffolins.com/
>
> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications
>
> [5]
>
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-03-06 Thread Strainu
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 outsiders will be easy, we'll see how it goes with
insiders.

Strainu

>
>
>
>
> 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.
> ::
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community review on
> > Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
> >
> > Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the
> > world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to
> get
> > a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and evaluate
> > public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
> >
> > We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part of
> > our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was
> commissioned
> > by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and
> > directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected
> > perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China,
> > Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and
> > values.
> >
> > The study revealed some interesting trends:
> >
> > - Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North
> America.
> >
> > - Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5] and
> is
> > fast growing.
> >
> > - There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower. For
> > example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%, Wikidata
> at
> > 20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
> >
> > - There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia. Respondents
> > reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its
> relationship
> > to Wikipedia.
> >
> > - In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed a
> high
> > level of support for our mission.
> >
> > Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also made a
> > strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The
> > suggestions include:
> >
> > - Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
> >
> > - Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from Wikipedia to
> > drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller projects.
> >
> > - Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons
> > which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent with
> > other projects.
> >
> > - Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate groups
> > that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
> >
> > - Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to reassert
> the
> > connections between projects (e.g. “__ - A Wikipedia project”).
> >
> > This is not a new idea.[7][8]
> >
> > By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared among the communities who give
> > them meaning. So in considering this change, the Wikimedia Foundation is
> > collecting feedback from across our communities. Our goal is to speak
> with
> > more than 80% of affiliates and as many individual contributors as
> possible
> > before May 2019, when we will offer the Board of Trustees a summary of
> > community response.
> >
> > We invite you to look at a project summary [9], the brand research [10],
> > and the brand strategy suggestion [11] Wolff Olins prepared working with
> us.
> >
> > For feedback, please add comments on the Community Review talk page [12]
> or
> > email brandproj...@wikimedia.org with direct feedback. You can also use
> > either of these channels to request to join a group meeting.
> >
> > We know this is big topic and we’re excited to hear from you!
> >
> >
> > - Zack McCune and the Wikimedia Foundation Communications department
> >
> >
> > [1]
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/07/how-does-the-
> world-see-wikimedia-brands/
> >
> > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
> >
> > [3] https://www.wolffolins.com/
> >
> > [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications
> >
> > [5]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/
> Defining_Emerging_Communities
> >
> > [6]
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/26/leading-with-
> wikipedia-a-brand-proposal-for-2030/
> >
> > [7] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-
> May/029991.html
> >
> > [8]
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%
> 3AStrengthening_and_unifying_the_visual_identity_of_
> Wikimedia_projects_-_a_step_towards_maturity_-_Wikimania_2007.pdf=56
> >
> > [9]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-03-06 Thread Benjamin Ikuta



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. ::
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community review on
> Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
> 
> Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the
> world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to get
> a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and evaluate
> public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
> 
> We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part of
> our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was commissioned
> by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and
> directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected
> perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China,
> Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and
> values.
> 
> The study revealed some interesting trends:
> 
> - Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North America.
> 
> - Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5] and is
> fast growing.
> 
> - There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower. For
> example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%, Wikidata at
> 20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
> 
> - There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia. Respondents
> reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its relationship
> to Wikipedia.
> 
> - In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed a high
> level of support for our mission.
> 
> Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also made a
> strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The
> suggestions include:
> 
> - Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
> 
> - Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from Wikipedia to
> drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller projects.
> 
> - Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons
> which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent with
> other projects.
> 
> - Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate groups
> that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
> 
> - Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to reassert the
> connections between projects (e.g. “__ - A Wikipedia project”).
> 
> This is not a new idea.[7][8]
> 
> By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared among the communities who give
> them meaning. So in considering this change, the Wikimedia Foundation is
> collecting feedback from across our communities. Our goal is to speak with
> more than 80% of affiliates and as many individual contributors as possible
> before May 2019, when we will offer the Board of Trustees a summary of
> community response.
> 
> We invite you to look at a project summary [9], the brand research [10],
> and the brand strategy suggestion [11] Wolff Olins prepared working with us.
> 
> For feedback, please add comments on the Community Review talk page [12] or
> email brandproj...@wikimedia.org with direct feedback. You can also use
> either of these channels to request to join a group meeting.
> 
> We know this is big topic and we’re excited to hear from you!
> 
> 
> - Zack McCune and the Wikimedia Foundation Communications department
> 
> 
> [1]
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-brands/
> 
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
> 
> [3] https://www.wolffolins.com/
> 
> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications
> 
> [5]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Defining_Emerging_Communities
> 
> [6]
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-brand-proposal-for-2030/
> 
> [7] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029991.html
> 
> [8]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AStrengthening_and_unifying_the_visual_identity_of_Wikimedia_projects_-_a_step_towards_maturity_-_Wikimania_2007.pdf=56
> 
> [9]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/project_summary
> 
> [10]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Wikipedia_and_Wikimedia_Brand_Research_Report.pdf
> 
> [11]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Wikimedia_brand_strategy_proposal_for_2030.pdf
> 
> [12]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Zack McCune (he/him)
> 
> Senior Global Brand Manager
> 
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>