I concur with Phoebe and others that the time for such a change was 10 or
15 years ago, and would not be appropriate or productive now.

One thing that this corporate rebranding after our most popular product
would erase is the "Wikimedia movement" - a social movement that is the
leading modern manifestation of the Free Culture movement that attracted me
as a member of Student For Free Culture a decade ago.  Rebranding ourselves
after a mere product is in some ways an erasure of the underlying social
movement.  When one is part of the "Wikipedia movement", one is just a user
of a specific website, and it sounds as empty as the "Facebook movement".

That said, I do agree with common-sense changes like WikiCommons and
perhaps others.  But I don't think that just because we have more money
now, and maybe it would have been a good idea 10 years ago, that corporate
rebranding around our most popular product is a good thing to do at this
stage in the evolution of our movement.

Thanks,
Pharos

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:01 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> When I joined Wikimedia in 2009 I also tried WikiNews, which looked yet
> another fantastic Wikimedia project. I soon realized, however, that it was
> just a repeater of CC-BY sources of news, with very residual (if any)
> proper production. When an handcrafted news-piece I've made was merged with
> one of those automatic repeaters, I left that project and never looked
> back. As far as I now it never was attractive, it never managed to
> congregate any proper community worth of that name (at least the Portuguese
> version) - It was kind of a failed project already 10 years ago. And that
> was one of the reasons and motivations for Jimbo trying to reshuffle the
> thing as his new child WikiTribune. Personally, I do not need that project
> at all. When some news is notable enough (like the tragic Notre-Dame fire
> yesterday) I create the article for it and build it as an encyclopedic
> article, which is much more motivating and permanent than whatever is made
> in WikiNews.
>
> Personally, I see this branding project as a two headed beast: In one head,
> WMF trying to take undue credit from the Wikipedia brand; on another head,
> some incipient Wikipedia dream of colonization towards other projects. As
> many, I started my contributions in the Wikimedia projects in Wikipedia,
> but very soon found Commons and the whole Wikipedia-free oasis that thrives
> there. I always looked at Commons as a kind of small paradise, precisely
> for not being necessarily associated with Wikipedia. So, 10 years ago, I
> would be as against the idea of placing Commons under the Wikipedia
> umbrella as I am today. (no opinion about WikiCommons, though, as we can
> continue shortnaming it to Commons anyway)
>
> On the whole, I very much agree with what Phoebe wrote about it.
> Wikicolonizations/WMFappropriations apart, it's very difficult to foresee
> how such a move would advance the goals of our Movement. What problem is
> solved by it? If anything, it seems to bring even more confusion between
> Wikipedia and the other sister projects.
>
> Best,
> Paulo
>
>
> Jennifer Pryor-Summers <jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> escreveu no dia
> terça, 16/04/2019 à(s) 07:52:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:49 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I wouldn't describe Wikinews as a success case, though.
> > >
> > > Paulo
> > >
> >
> > Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is not
> > thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or should
> the
> > WMF do to revive it?  Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> > be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> > Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them
> down,
> > on the principle of reinforcing success instead.  These are the big
> > questions it should be asking itself.
> >
> > JPS
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>

Reply via email to