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 <phili...@beaudette.me> 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 <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: 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> _______________________________________________ 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>