Good arguments,

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [] On Behalf Of 
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 4:54 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

I agree with both views expressed (the desirability of, and concerns about,
the Foundation name/brand), and I suggest a solution that might work for
both problems.

One the one hand, Wikimedia vs Wikipedia is confusing and Wikimedia is
little recognized. I'm not actually sure if that's a problem, because the
Foundation is only public facing in contexts where people will be fine with
that name (donations campaign, approaching 3rd parties for projects).

So do we actually have a problem? For example, do we really believe that
renaming the Foundation will actually increase donations or add to any
joint projects in a material way, or is this just that the Foundation
should have a widely recognised name but not a real problem if not?

Calling the entire foundation "The Wikipedia Foundation" enhances one (best
known) project but at the cost of marginalizing all others. Most of my work
is at Wikipedia but even so, I don't think that's a good thing at all,
other projects need a higher profile if anything, not more in Wikipedia's
shadow.  Also it narrows our focus as a project because now our entire
project name is just limited to Wikipedia, hampering our efforts to place
other projects at the "front of the stage" or make them big things. I don't
like that outcome at all.  Also it would be much harder to keep foundation
and community with their separate roles and identities, too much risk of
"blurring".  Those are real harms.

I agree a name change could have benefits, but if done, it must build on
(and "cap") all projects, not just "step into Wikipedia's shoes" only.

How about "The Wiki Knowledge Foundation"? Perhaps styled as "The
WikiKnowledge Foundation"?

   - It follows the naming pattern of * all * projects (Wikipedia,
   WikiNews, WikiCommons, WikiSource ... WikiKnowledge?)
   - It reflects the common aim of * all * projects
   - It keeps the "Wiki" part which is what has recognition beyond all, and
   is clearly distinct from "Wikipedia", but is not confusing, because it's
   clear what it means.
   - "Knowledge" is sufficiently broad that we would probably never have a
   project with that name.
   - There doesn't seem to be an active website with "wikiknowledge", so
   perhaps there's no risk of complaint is the name is used.  As a domain, "" seems to be OK.

If that doesn't work , there are countless variants that might work - wiki
learning foundation, wiki information foundation, wiki projects foundation
for example.


On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 19:54, Pharos <> wrote:

> 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 <
>> 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 <> escreveu no dia
> > terça, 16/04/2019 à(s) 07:52:
> >
> > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:49 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > >> 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:
> > > and
> > >
> > > New messages to:
> > > Unsubscribe:,
> > > <>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > and
> >
> > New messages to:
> > Unsubscribe:,
> > <>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> and
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to