Dear all,

As Acting Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees since March
[1] I take full responsibility for this situation. I am truly sorry for all
the frustration this whole situation has caused to volunteers, who have
engaged in discussions expressing their concerns, and to the staff, who
have been working and not really sure if that is really the direction the
Board is prepared to seriously consider, or if it is just an exercise on
our part. As Chair of the Board, I recognize the Board owes clear
information to the communities and guidance to the staff.

In 2017, the Board approved the 2030 Movement Strategic Direction,
recognizing the strategic importance of growing the reach of the Wikimedia
projects to new languages, communities, and geographies, as part of our
global mission. In June 2018, the Board approved a Foundation Annual Plan
that included research into the Wikimedia and Wikipedia brands to
understand how they could be tools in helping us reach these goals.

In November 2018 [2], the staff presented research to the Board about the
Wikipedia and Wikimedia brands. I personally, even though a relatively long
term Wikipedian (and a bit less long term Wikimedian), was basically
convinced by the findings that a rebranding is needed and beneficial for
our mission and global vision, and furthermore that it should be based on
the Wikipedia brand. The information presented there also convinced the
Board that the team should continue their work, but as you can see from the
minutes the Board believed that communication is crucial, but already a
possibility for a new name for the Wikimedia Foundation was seriously
considered [3].

And I am going to be frank here - intuitively taking the name of something
like “Wikipedia Foundation” makes a lot of sense, whether or not it makes
sense upon deeper consideration. But, of course, no one was planning to
just rename the organisation, more conversations were needed. It was
convincing enough for us (the Board) to approve the budget for this

The Board has received regular updates about the Brand work along the way,
including approving continued work in the 2019 and 2020 annual plans.
However, the Board has not yet had a very serious, frank conversation about
what the Board will do when the work is finished, including how to balance
feedback from many communities, and the importance of reaching new
communities. The Board also has not yet received a final report, as the
exploratory project was and still is ongoing.

The process itself, even though the brand project team has designed its
process to be inclusive and transparent, has created bitterness in some
volunteers, some of whom feel they were led on or even actively
manipulated. I am sure there was no intent to do that. But, for instance,
people do point to a reported KPI (key performance indicator) in the
previous survey as an alleged attempt at deceiving either the community or
the Board. The Board did not make its decision to support the brand project
based on that number, nor does the clarification of that number or removal
of that KPI influence the Board’s support for the project. Good-faith
mistakes should not undermine trust in our colleagues’ intentions or the
purpose of an entire process. But this “elephant in the room” feeling is
hurting all of us - both volunteers and staff, so I acknowledge that this
created a lot of bitterness.

I want us to take a step back and try to have an honest and constructive
conversation on what our future work will be together. I know there is
mistrust towards the Wikimedia Foundation acting in good faith, I also know
the staff members feel intimidated when talking with the communities, so it
is really difficult to have a frank dialog. We are all in this vicious
circle - we do not trust each other, so we do not talk honestly; we do not
talk honestly so we cannot build that trust. I truly want that to change.
So I am going to be as direct as possible about the Board’s perspective.

The executive statement says, “A rebrand will happen. This has already been
decided by the Board” [4]. What does it mean? The brand project was
approved by the Board in 2018. Rebrand may include: names, logos,
“taglines,” colours, typography, or any combination of the above. An
outcome of the project will be a set of recommended new branding
practices.The Board has not approved any specific recommendations yet.
However, it is important to be clear: the Board absolutely can change the
name of the Wikimedia Foundation, even to the “Wikipedia Foundation,” if it

Has the Board made the decision to change the name of Wikimedia Foundation
yet? No, the Board has not. In 2018, the Board agreed that the name of the
Wikimedia Foundation does not help us with our strategic goals. From
2018-2020, the Board has been reviewing research and participating in the
brand process with the goal of finding a better name. The Board has not yet
made a decision to change the name to another name, as the Board has not
yet had a final report on the results of the Brand Project, or the
opportunity to discuss the findings and tradeoffs, and make a decision for
what the Board will do. The Board conversation about this is planned to
happen during the August meeting.

Did the Board want to possibly have the rebranding (if approved) to take
place before Wikipedia’s 20th birthday in January 2021? Yes, in a way. The
resolution [5] talks about the work being done by then, but it is indeed
unclear whether the changing of the brand was included or just the
completion of the research by the Foundation. The timeline can still change
if the Board decides it.

Should the Board be clearer in what the Board is directing the Wikimedia
Foundation to do? Yes, I believe so. Some of this unclarity and
misalignment is the cause of all this unfortunate frustration.

What are the possible outcomes for the August Board meeting on branding?
The Board can 1) stop the project, 2) pause the work being done or 3)
continue with it.

Does the Board still want you to take the survey [6] then? Yes. The
currently open survey [6] is intended to find the best possible outcome if
the Foundation's (!) branding were centered around Wikipedia, and your
voice is needed. It is an opportunity to provide constructive feedback on
those alternatives. If you are engaging in discussions around it, please be
kind to each other.

Do all organisations in our movement have to have a uniform name? Per the
Board’s resolution from 2013
<> [7]
- yes, but it was a decision made at that time when the Board believed
there was a chance to increase visibility and recognition of Wikimedia as a
brand. It is 2020 now, and it may be the right time to loosen up on this
approach and allow all organisations in the movement to use different names
[8], best suited for their local context. Or keep uniform names, but allow
using any of our brands for fundraising purposes. Or something else. The
Board does have a sense that there is a need to be much more
outward-looking and optimize our key assets, including our brands, for the
challenges to come.

All across the Movement we have a lot to do to accomplish our 2030 goals
and build out our movement strategy. And that work can be done as the
Wikimedia Movement, Wikimedia communities, and the Foundation even with a
new name, depending on our needs.

Stay safe,

antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv

Acting Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees






[6] 2030 Movement Brand Project: Naming Convention Proposals Survey:


*NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to