Fair enough, I agree that the bias towards the English Wikipedia exists. It is natural and to be expected within English Wikipedia, but should not exist elsewhere in the Wikimedia community. I also agree that sometimes a regional bias exists because people from that region add more content, and we tend to add the content we know and care about and for which we have sources. I also agree that making Wikipedia the primary brand is likely to increase bias and tend to marginalise the non-Wikipedia projects even more. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: 15 March 2020 12:47 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement? Hoi, Back your pardon. I do not blame the English Wikipedia for the shortcomings of other Wikipedias. It does a reasonable job at informing an English reading public. The point that I make is that we do not consider how the bias towards English Wikipedia prevents us from reaching out and sharing in the sum of all knowledge. There is documentation that Cebuan Wikipedia articles are well presented and provide a more complete coverage of the knowledge domains it covers. Also please remember that all US places were added to English Wikipedia by bot. When I document bias, it is for you to understand that this bias exists. I stopped writing in English Wikipedia because the American perspective was more relevant that an international perspective. At stake in this thread is making Wikipedia a central brand. I indicated earlier that those living the English Wikipedia reality are not aware of the negative effects of its bias. In effect you tell me to do something about it. Well, I have been blogging about Wikimedia for the last 15 years [1] and I learned that documentation may be relevant but it is unlikely to make people see what is in front of them. Thanks, GerardM [1] https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/ On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 11:16, Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > It is grossly unrealistic to blame English Wikipedia and its editing > community for what you appear to consider the shortcomings of other > Wikipedias. En: does not require or pressurise other projects to comply > with its editorial standards, which are those developed by en:WP, and for > en:WP. Other projects are free to set and use their own standards for > content, within the general WMF terms of use, and generally do. If they > choose to emulate en:WP that is their prerogative. > If you think that Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job of informing on the > subject matter it covers than other projects, and would like to convince > other projects that this is a realistic and rational opinion, and that they > should follow that example, you are free to produce documentary evidence > from experts that this is the case, and present it to the editing > communities of those projects for consideration. > If Commons are exceeding their remit by refusing to host material that is > not used on en:WP, that is not the policy or the fault of the en:WP > community who have no authority over Commons. > As a general rule, when discussing a topic where there is scope for > confusion, there is less likely for confusion to occur when you are > sufficiently specific when referring to the ambiguous entities. > Cheers, > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen > Sent: 15 March 2020 08:37 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement? > > Hoi, > By making the point that there is no Wikipedia AND that almost universally > but particularly people who buy into English Wikipedia consider Wikipedia > English Wikipedia, I expected that this is understood. I then address > English Wikipedia specifically because it is its conventions that prevent > the sum of all our knowledge to be shared. > > Just to make that point specific, Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job > informing on the total of the subject matters it covers, it is a project of > a father who wants his children to have access to knowledge in their > maternal language. From a Wiki point of view he deserves praise and > gratitude in stead he gets scorn because it is against English Wikipedia > conventions. Furthermore the approach of using data to bring knowledge in > other languages is frustrated from within WMF. We could do a better job, a > job that will work for any language but it is actively discouraged. The > result is that we do NOT share in the sum of all knowledge, not even the > knowledge that is available to us. In other words, English Wikipedia > conventions prevent us from working towards our stated goal. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 06:19, Peter Southwood < > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> > wrote: > > > Gerard, You start off by correctly specifying that Wikipedia is about 300 > > projects and make several good points about how people confuse Wikipedia > > with English Wikipedia, how this bias adversely affects various other > > projects, and then claim that "Wikipedia" is "universally understood to > be > > highly toxic". Are you referring to all 300 odd projects, or are you > using > > the generic term for the specific project in the way you previously > > objected to? Something else that is not obvious? > > Cheers, > > Peter > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen > > Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 2:12 PM > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement? > > > > Hoi, > > Essie, the work done by Snøhetta centres on the notion of Wikipedia as a > > unifying brand. The problem is that Wikipedia on its own is 300 projects > > and that for many, if not most people English Wikipedia *is *Wikipedia. > > > > When we are all to be Wikipedia we will all suffer from the bias that > > English Wikipedia brings us. The problem with bias is that the negative > > effects are not felt, considered by those people who self identify with > > English Wikipedia. > > > > * Research centres on English Wikipedia, when research is done for > projects > > other than English Wikipedia, it is hard to get research published > > * New functionality is almost always written for the English Wikipedia, > the > > notion of the "other languages" is often not considered in the > architecture > > * It is assumed that functionality works for projects other than > Wikipedia, > > specific functionality is hardly ever developed > > * In OTRS, the notions of notability are hard coded for English > notability. > > Consequently many pictures have been removed that were explicitly > requested > > for use with Wikidata > > * there has been no marketing for other Wikimedia products - products. > Many > > Wikisource books are available in final form. We do not serve a purpose > > because we do not seek an audience for them > > * even though internationalisation and localisation for MediaWiki is > really > > good, we do not consider how we can make use of data in other languages. > > > > It is universally understood that Wikipedia is highly toxic and it may be > > that for external marketing Wikipedia makes sense. Internally I will > > welcome a unified message only once English Wikipedia accepts that its > > consensus is not considered as "Wikipedia" consensus.. Our aim is to > share > > in the sum of all knowledge and it is not only in English and it is not > > what English Wikipedia deems notable. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 18:33, Essie Zar <e...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > > > > Hello Everyone, > > > > > > There are some new updates and opportunities to engage with the Brand > > > project. Thank you to Lodewijk for bringing some attention to a few of > > > these opportunities. We were actively drafting this update for this > group > > > when your email went out. > > > > > > As Zack indicated in September,[1] we have been regularly discussing > with > > > the members of the brand network (which people can still join )[2] > ideas > > > around an evolved brand system with "Wikipedia" as a center point. To > > > assist in this evolution of the movement brand, we chose to partner > with > > > Snøhetta,[3] an internationally renowned design firm known for working > on > > > complex and multi-stakeholder projects like the modern Library of > > > Alexandria (Bibliotheca Alexandrina) and the 9/11 Memorial in New York > > > City. Snøhetta has been tasked with figuring out precisely what this > > > improved brand system will look like. They will release a proposed > naming > > > convention for movement-wide feedback in April, and a proposed design > for > > > movement-wide feedback in May. [4] The result of this process will be a > > new > > > branding system that will be opt-in for affiliates. > > > > > > In order to have enough knowledge and context to arrive at these > > proposals, > > > Snøhetta is reviewing feedback from the many points at which it has > > already > > > been given, and has created a process with built-in community > > involvement. > > > The > > > process thus far has included workshops in Norway, India and online > with > > 97 > > > volunteers from the brand network (movement affiliates, volunteers, > > > foundation staff, and board members) reflecting 41 nations. At the > > > workshops, community participants were asked to break into small groups > > to > > > answer the question "Who are we?". Through these workshops, groups > > > developed rich concepts* that they think best represent who we are as a > > > movement. > > > > > > Now, we would like to invite you to review the 23 concepts that came > out > > of > > > the community workshops by “liking” and providing feedback on the > one(s) > > > you think best represent the Wikimedia movement. You can click on any > > > concept to see an expanded explanation and photos of the actual > concepts > > > built or selected by workshop participants. > > > > > > Approximate time to complete this exercise is around 10-15 min. > > > > > > https://brandingwikipedia.org/concepts/ > > > > > > Feel free to leave feedback directly on Snøhetta’s website, on the > > project > > > talk page on Meta [5], or on the Brand Network [2], which will also be > > > available on Meta starting next month. > > > > > > Snøhetta will use the feedback from the concepts to develop one single > > > concept to act as a tool that will help guide the proposals around > naming > > > (expected for April) and around design (expected around May). They are > > > scheduled to begin reviewing feedback on Tuesday, 17 March, but can > > > continue taking feedback for a few more days if there is interest. > > > > > > We also invite you to share what free knowledge means to you in > > Snøhetta's > > > open exercise. Please take a moment and share your thoughts in any of > the > > > channels mentioned. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/02/17/what-does-free-knowledge-mean-to-you/ > > > > > > Finally, we want to acknowledge that we have feedback, from various > > points > > > in this process so far, from several communities and in several areas > of > > > the wikis, including Meta. We understand that some people believe that > we > > > don’t need this project. Our shared vision is for every single human > > being > > > to freely share in the sum of all knowledge -- and that means billions > of > > > people. There are many people and cultures we still need to reach and > > > include. We will need a strong well known brand to achieve the goals > the > > > movement has set for itself and we have a lot of work to do to get us > > > there. > > > > > > Want to learn more? Check out the project hub at brandingwikipedia.org > > and > > > the project page on Meta [5]. Participate in discussions on the project > > > talk page, or by joining the Brand Network [2]. Also feel free to drop > > us a > > > note at brandproj...@wikimedia.org if you have questions. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > Essie Zar > > > > > > (from the movement brand identity project team) > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-September/093382.html > > > > > > [2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediabrandnetwork/ > > > > > > [3] https://snohetta.com/ > > > > > > [4] > > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#Process > > > > > > [5] > > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project > > > > > > * What is a concept? > > > A tool making the complex more understandable. > > > > > > Concepts make complex subjects more understandable. They manage to > > > consolidate vast amounts of facts, data and details into a singular > > > definition in its context. By creating concepts we allow ourselves to > > > acknowledge the complexity yet dare to step away from differences and > > look > > > for similarities that binds it all together. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > *Essie Zar* (she/her) > > > Brand Manager > > > Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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> > _______________________________________________ > 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> > > -- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > https://www.avg.com > > > _______________________________________________ > 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>
