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 <phoebe.w...@gmail.com> 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: Wikimediaemail@example.com > 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: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>