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 <fae...@gmail.com> 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 <edsape...@gmail.com> 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 <phoebe.w...@gmail.com> 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 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 > > -- > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae > > _______________________________________________ > 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> _______________________________________________ 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>