[Foundation-l] Wikimedia brand survey open

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

[Foundation-l] Decision on...

[Foundation-l] Wikibooks trademark

Erik Moeller

31 May 2007 31 May '07

7:28 a.m.

I'd like to invite you to participate in a survey about Wikimedia's brands, their uses, and possible changes to our brand strategy: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_brand_survey Thank you. -- Peace & Love, Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees. "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic

Show replies by date

Anthony

31 May 31 May

7:42 p.m.

On 5/31/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

I'd like to invite you to participate in a survey about Wikimedia's brands, their uses, and possible changes to our brand strategy: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_brand_survey Thank you.

GerardM

8:17 p.m.

Hoi, Your question suggests that there might be no need for this survey. If everything was already decided there would be no point to this survey. Thanks, GerardM On 5/31/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:

...

On 5/31/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

I'd like to invite you to participate in a survey about Wikimedia's brands, their uses, and possible changes to our brand strategy: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_brand_survey Thank you.

Has it been decided whether or not the individual projects have any say in determining their own names, or whether the foundation will impose a name upon them from the top down, or is this still up for debate? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Erik Moeller

8:31 p.m.

On 5/31/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:

...

It is not decided that anything will change at all, and if it will, the parameters of that change are very much up to debate. This survey is an informal project I have initiated to collect some data for further discussion. It is worth considering, when it comes to majority decisions on such matter, that a group can be its own worst enemy: http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html Our own view of these brands is clouded by our constant exposure to them. Our neural networks have become, more or less, adapted to navigate the jungle of brands and name 1anagrams. -- Peace & Love, Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees. "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic

Erik Moeller

8:35 p.m.

On 5/31/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

Our own view of these brands is clouded by our constant exposure to them. Our neural networks have become, more or less, adapted to navigate the jungle of brands and name anagrams.

(sent early by accident) A branding decision that, in the long run, very much improves the perception of our projects, and thereby increases their chances of broad success, may, in typical communities, be an unpopular decision, because people have become accustomed to the existing brands and even take a little personal pride in their familiarity with them all. The fact that this present Board could make such a decision even if it was going to be unpopular seems like a feature to me rather than a bug. -- Peace & Love, Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees. "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic

hillgentleman

1 Jun 1 Jun

5:27 a.m.

...

A branding decision that, in the long run, very much improves the perception of our projects,

It is doubtful. Were Wikipedia would ever need to be rebranded as wikibook-encyclopaedia, it would only send a message that wikipedia is not comfortable in its own skins. and thereby increases their chances of

...

broad success, may, in typical communities, be an unpopular decision, because people have become accustomed to the existing brands and even take a little personal pride in their familiarity with them all.

That is true. However, your proposal is, from the beginning, manufactured towards short-term marketing. Your marketing plan has never considered that a name is related to two fundamentals in a wiki - the content and the community.

hillgentleman

6:29 a.m.

...

A branding decision that, in the long run, very much improves the perception of our projects, and thereby increases their chances of broad success, may, in typical communities, be an unpopular decision, because people have become accustomed to the existing brands and even take a little personal pride in their familiarity with them all. The fact that this present Board could make such a decision even if it was going to be unpopular seems like a feature to me rather than a bug.

The reason why the board may trump the community is that the board should be a stabilising force of the community. In a wiki process, it is the community that moves itself forward - not a proactive individual board member. Board members should seek to enlighten the community by thoughtful discussions. Please do not repeatedly accuse community members of "have become accustomed to the existing brands" and in the same time refuse to listen to legitimate concerns and doubts. That is not helpful. :) H.

Anthony

31 May 31 May

10:23 p.m.

On 5/31/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

On 5/31/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:

Has it been decided whether or not the individual projects have any say

determining their own names, or whether the foundation will impose a

name

upon them from the top down, or is this still up for debate?

It is worth considering, when it comes to majority decisions on such

...

matter, that a group can be its own worst enemy: http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html

Right, and it was precisely that essay that I had in mind when saying this. To give an example, I would suggest that Wikipedians (who aren't involved in Wikinews) shouldn't be involved in a discussion as to whether or not to change the name of Wikinews, because they are not at all part of the core group of the Wikinews project. That would be as silly as letting Chinese students who don't feel that Tibet is a country vote down the creation of a Usenet news group for discussing Tibetan culture. Anthony

Guillaume Paumier

1 Jun 1 Jun

11:16 a.m.

Hello, On 6/1/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:

...

On 5/31/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

It is worth considering, when it comes to majority decisions on such matter, that a group can be its own worst enemy: http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html

For once, I partly agree with Anthony (« une fois n'est pas coutume », as we say in French). Although forbidding Wikipedians to take part in discussions is a bad solution, this situation should be taken in account when analysing the results of this survey. Many Wikipedians who don't edit other Wikimedia projects think Wikipedia is the central project and others projects should be somehow assimilated. The fact is the "other projects" *don't want* to fall under the Wikipedia umbrella. They are fine with their current project, although they would certainly like to recruit. But they grow their way. They must definitely not be forced to undergo a hierarchal relationship with Wikipedia just because Wikipedians think Wikisource/books/etc. could increase their Google rank this way. Example of a comment that makes me choke indignantly: "It makes sense to make the other projects subordinate to [Wikipedia], rather than equal." (Source: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_brand_survey#Would_you_support_or_…) Wikimedia projects *are* equal, whatever their google rank or the attention they get from journalists. And I really hope every trustee and trustee candidate is aware of that. -- Guillaume Paumier [[m:User:guillom]] "Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have imagined." Henry David Thoreau

Ray Saintonge

4:34 p.m.

Anthony wrote:

...

On 5/31/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

On 5/31/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:

It is worth considering, when it comes to majority decisions on such

matter, that a group can be its own worst enemy: http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html

That sounds like an effective divide and conquer strategy. A person who is determined to effect these changes would likely have an easier time doing it that way than by trying to develop a consensus across all the projects at once. I very much support the operational autonomy of projects, but this is not an operational matter; it's a question of identity. To draw a parallel with the United States, would it be acceptable if State X insisted on calling itself the "Confederate State of X"? Even an overwhelming popular vote in the state for that would not find acceptance in a wider community. Ec

Andrew Gray

4:47 p.m.

On 01/06/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

Given that one in twelve of the US states don't call themselves states at all, you may be working from a bad example here :-) -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Anthony

11:18 p.m.

On 6/1/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

Anthony wrote:

On 5/31/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: >On 5/31/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: > > >>Has it been decided whether or not the individual projects have any say

>> >> >>determining their own names, or whether the foundation will impose a

name

upon them from the top down, or is this still up for debate?

It is worth considering, when it comes to majority decisions on such

matter, that a group can be its own worst enemy: http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html

Right, and it was precisely that essay that I had in mind when saying

this.

To give an example, I would suggest that Wikipedians (who aren't involved

Wikinews) shouldn't be involved in a discussion as to whether or not to change the name of Wikinews, because they are not at all part of the core group of the Wikinews project.

I was thinking it'd be just the opposite. If you have a consensus across each project individually, then you automatically have a consensus across all projects as a whole. The reverse, however, is not true. I very much support the operational autonomy of projects, but this is

...

not an operational matter; it's a question of identity.

Well, I certainly think a project's members should have a say in their identity. Not that they should be the sole determiner of that, mind you, but a change from above which doesn't have the support of the project's core members is bound to fail anyway. To draw a

...

parallel with the United States, would it be acceptable if State X insisted on calling itself the "Confederate State of X"? Even an overwhelming popular vote in the state for that would not find acceptance in a wider community.

No, it wouldn't be acceptable. IMO change should only come with the consent of *both* the core members of the project *and* the core members of the foundation as a whole. Anthony

Ray Saintonge

2 Jun 2 Jun

6 p.m.

Anthony wrote:

...

On 6/1/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

Anthony wrote:

To give an example, I would suggest that Wikipedians (who aren't involved in Wikinews) shouldn't be involved in a discussion as to whether or not to change the name of Wikinews, because they are not at all part of the core group of the Wikinews project.

Sure, but tactically it is more effective to work on one project at a time. Get the low hanging fruit first, and use that as a foundation for going after the more resistant ones. When only 5% or 10% of the projects have not changed pressuring them could bring the results that you want.

...

I very much support the operational autonomy of projects, but this is

not an operational matter; it's a question of identity.

Yes, and that's why one examines the situation from a tactical perspective. I would advise against being complacent about changes from above.

...

To draw a

No, it wouldn't be acceptable. IMO change should only come with the consent of *both* the core members of the project *and* the core members of the foundation as a whole.

Yes, I agree that there should agreement at both levels. We then have to agree on what we mean by "core". How much room is there in the core for people who ask tough questions? ;-) Ec

6188

days inactive

6190

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

12 comments

7 participants

tags (0)

participants (7)

Andrew Gray
Anthony
Erik Moeller
GerardM
Guillaume Paumier
hillgentleman
Ray Saintonge