Pe vineri, 6 septembrie 2019, Adrian Raddatz <ajraddatz(a)gmail.com> a scris:
Yet another potentially good idea from the Foundation
killed by the usual
atrocious style of stakeholder management. No benefits framed for the
community,
Huh? Have you seriously never seen people asking the difference between
Wikipedia and Wikimedia or wiki(m|p) edians complaining about how hard it
is to explain that difference?
This change is very much a bottom up one, even if it is pushed by the WMF
using corporate procedures rather than by the community using an RfC.
no
assurance that this change happens or not based on the results of the
consultation.
You can't figure out the benefits to the community - your key stakeholder
group - entirely as part of the consultation. You need to frame the
consultation as figuring out how to achieve pre-identified benefits to your
stakeholders in the optimal way. You should also try to get buy-in from key
community groups *before* you start consulting, and use them as part of the
consultation, so it stops being Foundation vs. the community and turns into
the Foundation collaboratively supporting community-led ideas.
It pains me to see this being done poorly, time and time again.
Adrian Raddatz
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulosperneta(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
After the last disastrous WMF intervention in
Wikipedia - Framgate - I
believe the timing is just perfect for the WMF to go forward with this
fit
of creativity of branding themselves as the
"Wikipedia Foundation".
It's one after another, and never stops.
Best,
Paulo
Yaroslav Blanter <ymbalt(a)gmail.com> escreveu no dia sexta, 6/09/2019
à(s)
18:25:
> I agree with Fae. I strongly oppose the proposal, and I somehow used to
> assume that our opinion would be asked in a structured way.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:03 PM Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from all
> > the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond with
> > a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?
> >
> > Something along the lines of:
> > "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and they
> > recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word "Wikipedia"
> > and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons" to
> > ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the WMF.
> > Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?"
> >
> > With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every discussion
> > on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether
"There
> > is considerable support for the
branding proposal" or "There is
> > considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual. Rather
> > than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness that
> > comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without
> > firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and less
> > credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from embedded
> > bias, especially considering the already banked investment in
> > consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove the
> > spent money had impact and "value".
> >
> > P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word "collaboration"
when
> > communicating with an international
group. It has unfortunate history
> > and gives the impression that you are quoting views from
collaborators
>
rather than holding open collegial discussion.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville <
dranville-ctr(a)wikimedia.org
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I agree with Pine.
> > > There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding
> > > proposition.
> > > I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except
that
> it
> > is
> > > difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but
it
is
> > > sometimes necessary).
> > > Have other options even been considered?
> > >
> > > -speaking in my own name here-
> > >
> > > Diane
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello Zack,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for the report on Meta.
> > > >
> > > > I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is
> > considerable
> > > > support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve
our
> > > > movement’s branding
system." What that statement appears to omit
is
> > that,
> > > > according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable
> opposition
> > to
> > > > the rebranding proposal.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having
> > "considerable
> > > > support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what appears
to
be
> > > considerable opposition?
> > >
> > >
> > > Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta displays
that
> > > > measure community and affiliate support or opposition regarding
the
> >
> rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and two
of
> the
> > > three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was using
those
> > > > measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition
regarding
> the
> > RfC,
> > > > I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as
declined.
> > > >
> > > > Pine
> > > >
> > > > (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune <zmccune(a)wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > *Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design
> > process for
> > > > > movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion group,
or
> > watch
> > > > for
> > > > > updates on Meta-Wiki.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello all,
> > > > >
> > > > > After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of
> > affiliates,
> > > > > several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I
am
>
pleased
> > > > to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement
brand
> > > strategy
> > > > [1].
> > > >
> > > > From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual
> contributors and
> > > > 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
> > > >
> > > > 1.
> > > >
> > > > Reducing confusion
> > > > 2.
> > > >
> > > > Protecting reputation
> > > > 3.
> > > >
> > > > Supporting sister projects
> > > > 4.
> > > >
> > > > Addressing (legal, governmental) risks
> > > > 5.
> > > >
> > > > Supporting movement growth
> > > > 6.
> > > >
> > > > The process of change
> > > >
> > > > Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You
will
see
> > > examples of comments within each section, along with a rough
indication
> > of
> > > how many of the comments that we received were related to each
theme.
> > > >
> > > > The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that
across
> > our
> > > > wide
> > > > > movement’s experience, different points of view are common
(and a
> > sign of
> > > > > health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created
“polarity
> > maps”
> > > > > which are used to help visualize how different arguments
coexist
in
> > > tension
> > > > with each other.
> > > >
> > > > Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very
thoughtful
> > and
> > > > > useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s
branding
> > > > > successful. One can read
the 6 themes above as “criteria” for
> > assessing
> > > > > branding systems.
> > > > >
> > > > > == Thanks ==
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia
> > Education
> > > > > Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold
> discussions
> > > > during
> > > > > their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues Elena
> > Lappen,
> > > > > Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive
parts
> of
> > this
> > > > > consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of
affiliates
> >
> > commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering
your
> > > > > perspectives and insights.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > == Next steps and staying involved ==
> > > > >
> > > > > There is considerable support for the brand proposal and
general
>
appetite
> > > > to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we believe
that
> > > > critical feedback on the
proposal offers direct guidance for
> precisely
> > > what
> > > > branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have
shared
> > these
> > > > > insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of
Trustees,
> who
> > > > > approved continuing these efforts.
> > > > >
> > > > > Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on
formal
>
brand
> > > > naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will use
> > > “Wikipedia”
> > > > as the central reference point. The resulting system will be
OPT-IN
> > for
> > > > > affiliates.
> > > > >
> > > > > This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a
group
of
> > > > volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during
this
> > > > > consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and we
> > invite
> > > > you
> > > > > to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to
host
>
this
> > > > discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid
discussions
> and
> > > > room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you do
not
> want
> > > to
> > > > commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be
> happening
> > > > within the brand network group, we will still be tracking
comments
> left
> > > on
> > > > the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important
ideas
and
> > > updates originating from the brand network discussion will be
shared
> > > > publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki.
> > > >
> > > > The development of this proposed identity system will take
> approximately
> > > 6
> > > > months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing
lists,
> > > > Wikimedia Space, and
Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where you
are
> > most
> > > > > comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the
power
to
> >
decide
> > > if/when they opt in to using the new system.
> > >
> > > Yours,
> > >
> > > Zack
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/26/leading-
with-wikipedia-a-brand-proposal-for-2030/
brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review/results
click
> the
> > gray
> > > > > "Request" button. When your request is approved, you
will be
able
to
see
> > > and access the brand network discussion category on the Discuss
Space
> > main
> > > page.
> > >
> > > [4]
> > >
> > >
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_
brands/2030_research_and_planning
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Zack McCune (he/him)
> > >
> > > Director of Brand
> > >
> > > 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > faewik(a)gmail.com
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> > Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>