Is there a middle ground that would satisfy all the objections? E.g., "Wikipedias and media" as a brand identifier?
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:25 PM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote: > > Thank Andrew for summing up all the issues around this rebranding issue. I > really dont believe it should be done. > I can’t see that this could be done without community consultation. I doubt > all versions of wikipedia could agree in a unanimous move. > How would Wikipedia be named if wikimedia takes its name? > As a wikimedian, I think that Wikimedia is just a lot more than Wikipedia, > and that the similarity of the names already establishes a link between the > two. > > Kind regards, > > Natacha / Nattes à chat > > > > Le 10 avr. 2019 à 21:05, Andrew Lih <andrew....@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > I agree with Galder's and Camelia's thoughts and believe we should slow > > down to think about this issue as a whole. We cannot, and should not, > > consider this purely a "branding" exercise because the internal and > > external risks go well beyond this. We need to carefully take them into > > consideration. > > > > At the Berlin Wikimedia Summit, I was asked by Zack McCune and Heather > > Walls about the branding issue. We talked about this at length so here is a > > summary of what I expressed to them: > > > > - Outside view: I respect the work the comms/branding team has done, but > > let's remember that the recommendations are from an outside consultancy > > that focuses on only one dimension of this issue. Their work does not > > consider our internal community and movement dynamics as a whole. So the > > recommendation should be seen as just one data point. > > > > - Unproven causality: While it's true that familiarity of the "Wikimedia" > > brand is low, the case has not been made that unifying our identity under > > "Wikipedia" is a solution for the particular markets in question. There are > > many other factors regarding adoption and recognition of any brand, not > > just Wikimedia, including the commercial context of mobile/Internet users > > and default consumer entry points to the information landscape (ie. search > > engine settings, starting home page, financial incentives and > > partnerships). Other factors are: first mover advantages (e.g. Korea, with > > Naver.com's dominance over Wikipedia), or government regulation (e.g. > > China, Turkey censorship) that affect any brand footprint. Remaking our > > whole identity for the possibility that we *might* get better recognition > > in certain markets needs much more careful study. > > > > - That was then, this is now: If this was 10 years ago, I would > > enthusiastically embrace the idea of putting everything under the Wikipedia > > umbrella. In 2003, before the WMF had staff and resources, I was one of the > > primary volunteer contacts for almost all press inquiries about Wikipedia. > > I know the headaches of having to explain what "Wikimedia" is to > > journalists and the public. The book I wrote in 2009 was titled "The > > Wikipedia Revolution" for name recognition, even though I knew "Wikimedia" > > would be more accurate. But that was then. We are a whole lot more than > > Wikipedia today. > > > > - 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. Wikimedia Commons is a community of its own > > with users of its content who never touch Wikipedia. See the many news > > outlets and publications that use now use CC licensed Commons images to use > > as visuals for their stories and products. Wikidata has quickly emerged as > > the de facto way for libraries, archives and museums to connect their > > metadata to each other. They are adopting it as their global crosswalk > > database that has been proven to be more scalable and highly available than > > anything in the information landscape. Wikidata is now regularly > > incorporated into conferences outside of our own Wikimedia community, and > > has the largest museum and library groups (Europeana, AAC, OCLC, IFLA-WLIC, > > et al) working with it. > > > > Many times, I've had librarians and curators tell me the equivalent of: "I > > never engaged with Wikipedia, because 'article writing' is not what we do. > > But metadata and authority control records on Wikidata coincide with what I > > do every day." I just had a phone call with a 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 and the logo families. > >> ________________________________ > >> From: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of > >> Strainu <strain...@gmail.com> > >> 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 <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> 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> > > > > > > > > -- > > -Andrew Lih > > Author of The Wikipedia Revolution > > US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016) > > Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015) > > Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM > > Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American > > University, Columbia University, USC > > --- > > Email: and...@andrewlih.com > > WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado > > PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE > > _______________________________________________ > > 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>
