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



Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to