It's not rocket science, ask an advertising/PR consulting company what they
think about renaming, they are going to go with the easiest option that's
the best known identity.   It's a no brainer exercise of take the money and

There is more to this community/movement than its choice of name, to get to
those aspects and come up with something new is an exercise that no
PR/advertising company wants to take on without substantial outlay and
healthy profit because failure will be remembered long after the last
cheque is cashed.  You only need to look at how the outcome of
Alphabet/Google naming to realise that deeper meanings exist.  Wikipedia is
more than just a brand outside the movement, it's synonymous with it being
a community, with trusted knowledge, and significantly something that
somehow worked when everything the experts assumed about collaboration said
it shouldn't.

Yes we know the board can do whatever they want, call themselves whatever
they want,  the question has always been should they?, even then they
should have known not to.

The Wikimedia Foundation will always be a distant second to Wikipedia even
if they try to take on the name Wikipedia, which is as it should be as
Wikipedia is not about the Board or Foundation both of whom are there to
only support the projects.  It's beholden upon us as community members to
grow the community, to grow the content , and ensure its quality.... the
Foundation is there to provide the support/foundations we need to do our
part. While the Board is there to ensure that the WMF acts within the
bounds of its scope and complies with its legal requirements as a charity.

WMF and the Board are just the pilot and tug boat whos knowledge is meant
to keep us off the rocks, tug boats dont take on the name of the ship they
have their own identity.

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 18:36, Gerard Meijssen <>

> Hoi,
> Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it
> warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not
> argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the
> exchange of arguments when you do not allow for reading and commenting on
> what has been expressed?
> For the record I do value WereSpielChequers, he is imho an accomplished
> Wikimedian who I respect.
> When you tell me that I cannot comment on what people write, how do you
> expose a bias. What does it do for a freedom of expression? What I bring
> are arguments that you do not refute by dismissing them.
> Thanks,
>        GerardM
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 11:43, Benjamin Lees <> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:56 AM Gerard Meijssen <
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the
> > choices
> > > made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects
> and
> > > you make that plain in what you say.
> > >
> >
> > This sort of assumption-making about other list participants' motives is
> > completely unwarranted.[1]  You've been doing it repeatedly.  Please
> stop.
> >
> > [1] As regards WereSpielChequers, it is also demonstrably false.  He has
> > nearly 500,000 edits on Commons.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > and
> >
> > New messages to:
> > Unsubscribe:,
> > <>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> and
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>


*Power of Diverse Collaboration*
*Sharing knowledge brings people together*
Wikimania Bangkok 2021
hosted by ESEAP

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

Reply via email to