Hi all,
Erik (user:Eloquence) conducted a smallish survey on Meta about Wikimedia brand identities. (See the relevant parts of his email below.) Some people identified "Wikimedia Commons" as a confusing name, in that it doesn't clearly identify what the project actually is or does. Do Commoners think the project should be renamed, and if so, to what?
IMO Commons had rather no choice but to choose a confusing name, because the obvious name - Wikimedia! - already stands for some other idea that doesn't actually have a lot to do with media but only wikis. Perhaps Wikimedia (& Wikimedia Foundation) should become Wikimmunity (wiki-community - but it kind of sounds like wiki-immunity :)) and then Commons can take over the Wikimedia label. Otherwise we're looking at "Wikimedia Media"... er... then should MediaWiki be "Wikimedia Wiki"? :)
If I search in google for "Commons", Wikimedia Commons is 7th, behind Jakarta Commons (something to do with Java), Creative Commons, "Commons" (NIH grants?), two Wikipedia articles, and the UK govt "House of Commons" website. Clearly using the word Commons is going to be an uphill battle in terms of creating an identity. (Doesn't mean it's impossible, though.)
Is there any other word like "media" in English that covers the meaning of images/graphics + audio + video (+ documents) ?
Wikimedia Formats? (urgh) Wikimedia Multimedia? Mediagenic? (I just learnt of this word via Wiktionary. It's formed from media + photogenic, I quite like it. but there's some companies that have taken it already I think.)
Does Commons need a "Wikimedia" identifier in the name? (None of the other projects have one.) Does Commons need a "wiki" identifier in the name? (All of the other projects have it, but I think it's not as essential to Commons as to other projects.)
Ideas welcome, Brianna user:pfctdayelise
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org Date: 01-Jul-2007 22:16 Subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Brand Survey Analysis To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
== Current names ==
Of all the names, "Wikimedia Commons" is widely identified (by 12 people, according to my count) as a confusing name which does not really identify what the project stands for, is not easily translatable, too long, and too close to "Creaitve Commons."
[...]
== Follow-up ==
I'd like to recommend several follow-up steps. Some of these can be only taken by the Board/Staff, while others can be initiated by any community member:
[...] * There should be a dedicated brainstorming about the Wikimedia Commons name and possible alternatives. [...]
Commons is the "common" place for wikimedia projects for media (images, video files, audio files, pdf files). It may be further expanded to include interwiki templates and other goodies when there is Mediawiki support for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediagenic is taken and we (commons) shouldn't be restricted to multimedia.
I personally have no problem identifying what commons is. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Commons
I want to be associated with a project which has a litteral meaning "belonging equally to, or shared alike by, two or more or all in question" (1st meaning on the cited source) which is what commons is, a common wiki.
- White Cat
On 7/2/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Erik (user:Eloquence) conducted a smallish survey on Meta about Wikimedia brand identities. (See the relevant parts of his email below.) Some people identified "Wikimedia Commons" as a confusing name, in that it doesn't clearly identify what the project actually is or does. Do Commoners think the project should be renamed, and if so, to what?
IMO Commons had rather no choice but to choose a confusing name, because the obvious name - Wikimedia! - already stands for some other idea that doesn't actually have a lot to do with media but only wikis. Perhaps Wikimedia (& Wikimedia Foundation) should become Wikimmunity (wiki-community - but it kind of sounds like wiki-immunity :)) and then Commons can take over the Wikimedia label. Otherwise we're looking at "Wikimedia Media"... er... then should MediaWiki be "Wikimedia Wiki"? :)
If I search in google for "Commons", Wikimedia Commons is 7th, behind Jakarta Commons (something to do with Java), Creative Commons, "Commons" (NIH grants?), two Wikipedia articles, and the UK govt "House of Commons" website. Clearly using the word Commons is going to be an uphill battle in terms of creating an identity. (Doesn't mean it's impossible, though.)
Is there any other word like "media" in English that covers the meaning of images/graphics + audio + video (+ documents) ?
Wikimedia Formats? (urgh) Wikimedia Multimedia? Mediagenic? (I just learnt of this word via Wiktionary. It's formed from media + photogenic, I quite like it. but there's some companies that have taken it already I think.)
Does Commons need a "Wikimedia" identifier in the name? (None of the other projects have one.) Does Commons need a "wiki" identifier in the name? (All of the other projects have it, but I think it's not as essential to Commons as to other projects.)
Ideas welcome, Brianna user:pfctdayelise
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org Date: 01-Jul-2007 22:16 Subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Brand Survey Analysis To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
== Current names ==
Of all the names, "Wikimedia Commons" is widely identified (by 12 people, according to my count) as a confusing name which does not really identify what the project stands for, is not easily translatable, too long, and too close to "Creaitve Commons."
[...]
== Follow-up ==
I'd like to recommend several follow-up steps. Some of these can be only taken by the Board/Staff, while others can be initiated by any community member:
[...]
- There should be a dedicated brainstorming about the Wikimedia
Commons name and possible alternatives. [...]
-- They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 7/2/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Commons is the "common" place for wikimedia projects for media (images, video files, audio files, pdf files). It may be further expanded to include interwiki templates and other goodies when there is Mediawiki support for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediagenic is taken and we (commons) shouldn't be restricted to multimedia.
And Meta is the "common" place for discusions and coordinations...
Perhaps meta can be merged to commons? A daring idea perhaps but we could more than handle it. There are so few galleries and articles on Meta. A "new" commons namespace can be dedicated to that import.
- White Cat
On 7/2/07, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/2/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Commons is the "common" place for wikimedia projects for media (images, video files, audio files, pdf files). It may be further expanded to
include
interwiki templates and other goodies when there is Mediawiki support
for
it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediagenic is taken and we (commons) shouldn't be restricted to multimedia.
And Meta is the "common" place for discusions and coordinations...
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
As of Monday, 2 July, 2007, 08:27 (UTC/GMT), there are currently 10,471 articles and 2,680 files on Meta.
As of Monday, 2 July 2007, (UTC/GMT), there are currently 63,232 galleries and 1,603,598 files on Wikimedia Commons.
- White Cat
On 7/2/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps meta can be merged to commons? A daring idea perhaps but we could more than handle it. There are so few galleries and articles on Meta. A "new" commons namespace can be dedicated to that import.
- White CatOn 7/2/07, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/2/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Commons is the "common" place for wikimedia projects for media
(images,
video files, audio files, pdf files). It may be further expanded to
include
interwiki templates and other goodies when there is Mediawiki support
for
it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediagenic is taken and we (commons) shouldn't be restricted to multimedia.
And Meta is the "common" place for discusions and coordinations...
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
The fact that we have the confusing Wikimedia in our name, is actually an advantage. If you want to request author's permission for freely licensing an image, they will immediately associate the name with Wikipedia, a name that everybody knows. The chance of success is so much greater when saying "Wikimedia Commons" than "Commons".
Bryan
On 7/2/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
As of Monday, 2 July, 2007, 08:27 (UTC/GMT), there are currently 10,471 articles and 2,680 files on Meta.
As of Monday, 2 July 2007, (UTC/GMT), there are currently 63,232 galleries and 1,603,598 files on Wikimedia Commons.
- White Cat
On 7/2/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps meta can be merged to commons? A daring idea perhaps but we could
more than handle it. There are so few galleries and articles on Meta. A "new" commons namespace can be dedicated to that import.
- White CatOn 7/2/07, Pedro Sanchez < pdsanchez@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/2/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Commons is the "common" place for wikimedia projects for media
(images,
video files, audio files, pdf files). It may be further expanded to
include
interwiki templates and other goodies when there is Mediawiki support
for
it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediagenic is taken
and we
(commons) shouldn't be restricted to multimedia.
And Meta is the "common" place for discusions and coordinations...
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Agreed.
- White Cat
On 7/2/07, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that we have the confusing Wikimedia in our name, is actually an advantage. If you want to request author's permission for freely licensing an image, they will immediately associate the name with Wikipedia, a name that everybody knows. The chance of success is so much greater when saying "Wikimedia Commons" than "Commons".
Bryan
On 7/2/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
As of Monday, 2 July, 2007, 08:27 (UTC/GMT), there are currently 10,471 articles and 2,680 files on Meta.
As of Monday, 2 July 2007, (UTC/GMT), there are currently 63,232
galleries
and 1,603,598 files on Wikimedia Commons.
- White Cat
On 7/2/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps meta can be merged to commons? A daring idea perhaps but we
could
more than handle it. There are so few galleries and articles on Meta. A "new" commons namespace can be dedicated to that import.
- White CatOn 7/2/07, Pedro Sanchez < pdsanchez@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/2/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Commons is the "common" place for wikimedia projects for media
(images,
video files, audio files, pdf files). It may be further expanded
to
include
interwiki templates and other goodies when there is Mediawiki
support
for
it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediagenic is taken
and we
(commons) shouldn't be restricted to multimedia.
And Meta is the "common" place for discusions and coordinations...
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
White Cat wrote:
Perhaps meta can be merged to commons? A daring idea perhaps but we could more than handle it. There are so few galleries and articles on Meta. A "new" commons namespace can be dedicated to that import.
- White Cat
Against. On the beginning, everything was on en: Meta was a split to take out non-wikipedia material. Commons is not a places for "things used by many wikis" but a place for free images (and other files).
PD: Wikimedia Commons is the first result at http://www.google.es/search?q=commons&lr=lang_es
Yes, I am proposing an expansion. Please think about it before dismissing it. :)
- White Cat
On 7/2/07, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
White Cat wrote:
Perhaps meta can be merged to commons? A daring idea perhaps but we could more than handle it. There are so few galleries and articles on Meta. A "new" commons namespace can be dedicated to that import.
- White CatAgainst. On the beginning, everything was on en: Meta was a split to take out non-wikipedia material. Commons is not a places for "things used by many wikis" but a place for free images (and other files).
PD: Wikimedia Commons is the first result at http://www.google.es/search?q=commons&lr=lang_es
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 02/07/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps meta can be merged to commons? A daring idea perhaps but we could more than handle it. There are so few galleries and articles on Meta. A "new" commons namespace can be dedicated to that import.
- White Cat
The two projects serve entirely different purposes: one is a central administration point for Wikimedia projects and the other is a copyleft media library with purpose to serve other Wikimedia projects and to act as a stand-alone project.
On 7/2/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Commons is the "common" place for wikimedia projects for media (images, video files, audio files, pdf files).
The use of the word "commons" is not just to convey the meaning that it's a file storage area for the Wikimedia projects, but the related meaning of an area that's specifically set aside to be shared for the public benefit. The allusion is to the commons in a village, and it's representing the fact that the Commons is not just a file repository but a library of PD or free-licenced media. In this way it's like the dual meaning (in the English language, at least) of "free" in the descriptor of Wikipedia as "the free encyclopedia".
I personally like the current name, but I think that any new name ought to convey both of these meanings, that it's not just a file repository for the Wikimedia projects, but a library of free media for everyone.
How about Free Commons :)
- White Cat
On 7/2/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/2/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Commons is the "common" place for wikimedia projects for media (images, video files, audio files, pdf files).
The use of the word "commons" is not just to convey the meaning that it's a file storage area for the Wikimedia projects, but the related meaning of an area that's specifically set aside to be shared for the public benefit. The allusion is to the commons in a village, and it's representing the fact that the Commons is not just a file repository but a library of PD or free-licenced media. In this way it's like the dual meaning (in the English language, at least) of "free" in the descriptor of Wikipedia as "the free encyclopedia".
I personally like the current name, but I think that any new name ought to convey both of these meanings, that it's not just a file repository for the Wikimedia projects, but a library of free media for everyone.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Brianna wrote:
Is there any other word like "media" in English that covers the meaning of images/graphics + audio + video (+ documents) ?
What about wikifiles?
Regards,
Flo
On 02/07/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Erik (user:Eloquence) conducted a smallish survey on Meta about Wikimedia brand identities. (See the relevant parts of his email below.) Some people identified "Wikimedia Commons" as a confusing name, in that it doesn't clearly identify what the project actually is or does. Do Commoners think the project should be renamed, and if so, to what?
IMO Commons had rather no choice but to choose a confusing name, because the obvious name - Wikimedia! - already stands for some other idea that doesn't actually have a lot to do with media but only wikis. Perhaps Wikimedia (& Wikimedia Foundation) should become Wikimmunity (wiki-community - but it kind of sounds like wiki-immunity :)) and then Commons can take over the Wikimedia label. Otherwise we're looking at "Wikimedia Media"... er... then should MediaWiki be "Wikimedia Wiki"? :)
If I search in google for "Commons", Wikimedia Commons is 7th, behind Jakarta Commons (something to do with Java), Creative Commons, "Commons" (NIH grants?), two Wikipedia articles, and the UK govt "House of Commons" website. Clearly using the word Commons is going to be an uphill battle in terms of creating an identity. (Doesn't mean it's impossible, though.)
Is there any other word like "media" in English that covers the meaning of images/graphics + audio + video (+ documents) ?
Wikimedia Formats? (urgh) Wikimedia Multimedia? Mediagenic? (I just learnt of this word via Wiktionary. It's formed from media + photogenic, I quite like it. but there's some companies that have taken it already I think.)
Does Commons need a "Wikimedia" identifier in the name? (None of the other projects have one.) Does Commons need a "wiki" identifier in the name? (All of the other projects have it, but I think it's not as essential to Commons as to other projects.)
Ideas welcome, Brianna user:pfctdayelise
Is "Wikimedia" really a necessary part of the name of the project? If we want Commons to grow, we need to emphasise it's use as a stand-alone image repository for copyleft images and move away from its use as merely an auxiliary slave project to the rest of Wikimedia.
One step to achieving this is to adopt a sleeker name. The "Commons" part seems perfect for what we are trying to do for all the reasons Stephen Bain pointed out. If we were to get rid of "Wikimedia" as part of the name (it is clunky (5 syllables!), unrecognised by most and hems in our purpose), I think we'd need something in its place to differentiate us from other "Commons". I've no idea what such a name could be; I'd suggest "Open Commons" or "Media Commons" or somesuch if they weren't so generic and similar to other projects (i.e. Open Media).
On 7/2/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
IMO Commons had rather no choice but to choose a confusing name, because the obvious name - Wikimedia! - already stands for some other idea that doesn't actually have a lot to do with media but only wikis. Perhaps Wikimedia (& Wikimedia Foundation) should become Wikimmunity (wiki-community - but it kind of sounds like wiki-immunity :)) and then Commons can take over the Wikimedia label. Otherwise we're looking at "Wikimedia Media"... er... then should MediaWiki be "Wikimedia Wiki"? :)
How about just "wikicommons.org"? We do own the domain name. This would reflect the idea that we, at some point, may want to also serve other wiki communities through tools like InstantCommons. It would be much less of a hassle to perform this rename since many people have called it that from the start, and most references to the project would still be accurate.
So long as commons.wikimedia.org permanently redirects such a thing would be fine.
Erik what do you think of the Meta - Commons merger idea of mine btw? I know it contradicts your proposal a bit, but an alternative is merging wikimedia related community stuff. Meta doesn't have to be standalone.
- White Cat
On 7/2/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 7/2/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
IMO Commons had rather no choice but to choose a confusing name, because the obvious name - Wikimedia! - already stands for some other idea that doesn't actually have a lot to do with media but only wikis. Perhaps Wikimedia (& Wikimedia Foundation) should become Wikimmunity (wiki-community - but it kind of sounds like wiki-immunity :)) and then Commons can take over the Wikimedia label. Otherwise we're looking at "Wikimedia Media"... er... then should MediaWiki be "Wikimedia Wiki"? :)
How about just "wikicommons.org"? We do own the domain name. This would reflect the idea that we, at some point, may want to also serve other wiki communities through tools like InstantCommons. It would be much less of a hassle to perform this rename since many people have called it that from the start, and most references to the project would still be accurate.
-- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 02/07/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Erik what do you think of the Meta - Commons merger idea of mine btw? I know it contradicts your proposal a bit, but an alternative is merging wikimedia related community stuff. Meta doesn't have to be standalone.
I see no sensible reason to merge Meta and Commons - they have completely different functions. Why would this be a useful idea?
- d.
On 7/3/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I see no sensible reason to merge Meta and Commons - they have completely different functions. Why would this be a useful idea?
I have to agree with David; the only thing they have in common really is that they are both multilingual, crossing project boundaries. I can easily imagine, in fact, that we will create new multilingual wiki projects in the future.
If Commons has a lot in common (*cough*) with another WMF project, it would probably be Wikisource. Both are used to collect existing works that are typically not modified much (though Commons also accepts original creations). But Wikisource has been split into many different language editions for good reason, as the needs of different communities outweigh the benefits of centralization.
On 03/07/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
If Commons has a lot in common (*cough*) with another WMF project, it would probably be Wikisource. Both are used to collect existing works that are typically not modified much (though Commons also accepts original creations). But Wikisource has been split into many different language editions for good reason, as the needs of different communities outweigh the benefits of centralization.
More to the point, all Wikisource material has "language" as a fundamental attribute, which isn't really applicable here.
The equivalent fragmentation in Commons would presumably be, oh, something like -
image.commons video.commons audio.commons
On 7/3/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
More to the point, all Wikisource material has "language" as a fundamental attribute, which isn't really applicable here.
The equivalent fragmentation in Commons would presumably be, oh, something like -
image.commons video.commons audio.commons
Where would animations fit in? They aren't movies per se, but neither are they strictly images.
Personally I think our name is fine, but that could just be because I'm so used to it; I do remember when I first heard of Commons thinking "what is it for?" and having to go and look around to figure out what the purpose of it was. Having our name so close to Creative Commons is also an issue, and we may get confused with them from time to time by people who aren't familiar with either.
I'm not going to push for the renaming of the Commons as I think our name is okay as is, but if I heard a decent substitute I might go for it. So far none of the suggestions have jumped out or seem feasible and I doubt we will really find one all-encompassing name that doesn't cause conflicts in some direction...
-- Ayelie ~Editor at Large
On 03/07/07, Ayelie ayelie.at.large@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/3/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
More to the point, all Wikisource material has "language" as a fundamental attribute, which isn't really applicable here.
The equivalent fragmentation in Commons would presumably be, oh, something like -
image.commons video.commons audio.commons
Where would animations fit in? They aren't movies per se, but neither are they strictly images.
I dunno. Maybe we could have month-long flamewars over whether image.commons contained *just* "traditional" images, or upstart modern dialects like animations ;-)
On 7/3/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/07/07, Ayelie ayelie.at.large@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/3/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
More to the point, all Wikisource material has "language" as a fundamental attribute, which isn't really applicable here.
The equivalent fragmentation in Commons would presumably be, oh, something like -
image.commons video.commons audio.commons
Where would animations fit in? They aren't movies per se, but neither
are
they strictly images.
I dunno. Maybe we could have month-long flamewars over whether image.commons contained *just* "traditional" images, or upstart modern dialects like animations ;-)
Or we could have...
jpg.commons svg.commons png.commons gif.commons ogg.commons djvu.commons pdf.commons [...]
Why not just break ourselves up into "languages" like all other projects? Shouldn't be *too* much of a hassle.... I mean, I wouldn't apply for adminship on ogg.commons or pdf.commons but I might pass on jpg/svg/png .commons ... "Hello! My name is Ayelie and I'm an administrator on jpg.commons.org, svg.commons.org, png.commons.org, and gif.commons.org; if you have any questions pertaining to ogg.commons.org or pdf.commons.org I'm afraid I'm clueless but feel free to ask one of the 3 admins who are semi-active on those projects..."
I really do not see how dividing ourselves up is going to achieve anything other than a LOT of confusion and conflicts and annoyance. I don't think metawiki should be merged with us either; we get enough vandalism on license templates and images as it is without having to deal with people vandalising pages that are transcluded on multiple projects, not to mention the fact that a lot of the great admins on that project know very little about licensing and so would be lost as admins on Commons.
Commons is a media repository, meta is an information repository. Two similar, but very different projects - and merging them may make sense on some levels but I really don't think in the large scheme of things it would work.
On 03/07/07, Ayelie ayelie.at.large@gmail.com wrote:
I really do not see how dividing ourselves up is going to achieve anything other than a LOT of confusion and conflicts and annoyance.
Sorry, I should perhaps say I agree with you - the post was "if we could split ourselves up, it'd have to be like this", in order to demonstrate that it would, after all, be rather silly...
I've personally never liked the name "Wikicommons". It just doesn't sound well to me, compared to "Wikimedia Commons" or "(The) Commons."
Bryan
On 7/2/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 7/2/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
IMO Commons had rather no choice but to choose a confusing name, because the obvious name - Wikimedia! - already stands for some other idea that doesn't actually have a lot to do with media but only wikis. Perhaps Wikimedia (& Wikimedia Foundation) should become Wikimmunity (wiki-community - but it kind of sounds like wiki-immunity :)) and then Commons can take over the Wikimedia label. Otherwise we're looking at "Wikimedia Media"... er... then should MediaWiki be "Wikimedia Wiki"? :)
How about just "wikicommons.org"? We do own the domain name. This would reflect the idea that we, at some point, may want to also serve other wiki communities through tools like InstantCommons. It would be much less of a hassle to perform this rename since many people have called it that from the start, and most references to the project would still be accurate.
-- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 02/07/07, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
I've personally never liked the name "Wikicommons". It just doesn't sound well to me, compared to "Wikimedia Commons" or "(The) Commons."
I agree. Practically no one uses the term *on* Commons. I think the problem is too many syllables/just sticking words together instead of properly merging them. Wikipedia works because it's not Wikiencyclopedia. OTOH Wikibooks also works because 'books' is only one syllable.
I personally am rather fond of 'Wikimedia Commons' now, and I always use the long version of the name outside Wikimedia, because otherwise there are too many things that are 'Commons'. But I do recognise it's not the most intuitive name.
I like the community, public-benefit connotation of 'Commons' as Stephen pointed out, too.
I think it's not worth renaming unless we get a very strong candidates that fits the criteria of being obvious, unique and short. So let's see what more brilliant inspiration can produce. :)
cheers Brianna
2007/7/3, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com:
I think it's not worth renaming unless we get a very strong candidates that fits the criteria of being obvious, unique and short. So let's see what more brilliant inspiration can produce. :)
I Agree on this point, and think that the real problems why Commons is not so successful are not related to its name but to the MediaWiki software (as is now) that is very good to write encyclopedias but awful to implement an image bank. The concept of "wiki" (easy edit with full history of changes) is very useful for our needs, but the implementation with MediaWiki is far from being good.
Barcex
Hello,
On 7/3/07, Barcex barcexwiki@gmail.com wrote:
2007/7/3, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com:
I think it's not worth renaming unless we get a very strong candidates that fits the criteria of being obvious, unique and short. So let's see what more brilliant inspiration can produce. :)
I Agree on this point, and think that the real problems why Commons is not so successful are not related to its name but to the MediaWiki software (as is now) that is very good to write encyclopedias but awful to implement an image bank. The concept of "wiki" (easy edit with full history of changes) is very useful for our needs, but the implementation with MediaWiki is far from being good.
I agree with this. Wikimedia Commons is a repository for free media. The "wiki" part is very important for Wikipedia, Wikinews or other projects, but on Commons it is less useful. I think a name such as "Media Commons" would be faithful to our goal (free media repository) and would allow us to maybe switch to a better software in the future without having to rename the project.
On 7/4/07, Guillaume Paumier guillom.pom@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with this. Wikimedia Commons is a repository for free media. The "wiki" part is very important for Wikipedia, Wikinews or other projects, but on Commons it is less useful. I think a name such as "Media Commons" would be faithful to our goal (free media repository) and would allow us to maybe switch to a better software in the future without having to rename the project.
I beg to differ. Wiki-style collaboration is very much applicable to media files. It already happens quite strongly on the metadata level -- people fixing other people's categories, adding and removing hundreds of different template types, translating descriptions, and so on. There is also some per-file collaboration (improvements to images in particular), and a lot of media-related discussion.
Certainly MW could be improved to better support e.g. multilingual tagging, tag synonymy, media search, and some nice UIs, but MW itself _is_ the right tool for the job.
On 7/4/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 7/4/07, Guillaume Paumier guillom.pom@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with this. Wikimedia Commons is a repository for free media. The "wiki" part is very important for Wikipedia, Wikinews or other projects,
but
on Commons it is less useful. I think a name such as "Media Commons"
would
be faithful to our goal (free media repository) and would allow us to
maybe
switch to a better software in the future without having to rename the project.
I beg to differ. Wiki-style collaboration is very much applicable to media files. It already happens quite strongly on the metadata level -- people fixing other people's categories, adding and removing hundreds of different template types, translating descriptions, and so on. There is also some per-file collaboration (improvements to images in particular), and a lot of media-related discussion.
Certainly. I am not saying wiki brings nothing to Wikimedia Commons. Though, I feel Commons is the less "wiki" of our projects, because the content itself is not directly editable.
Certainly MW could be improved to better support e.g. multilingual
tagging, tag synonymy, media search, and some nice UIs, but MW itself _is_ the right tool for the job.
MediaWiki may be the right tool for the job. Though, I am not enough a techie to know if the amount of work needed to achieve the improvements you cite will require more or less time than a brand new software.
On 7/4/07, Guillaume Paumier guillom.pom@gmail.com wrote:
MediaWiki may be the right tool for the job. Though, I am not enough a techie to know if the amount of work needed to achieve the improvements you cite will require more or less time than a brand new software.
Ok, I hadn't seen the thread next door ("software improvements") :)
What would be theoretically possible as well is if, say, the WMF got renamed to the "Wiki Foundation", leaving the "Wikimedia" name to the Commons.
-ilya
On 7/2/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 7/2/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
IMO Commons had rather no choice but to choose a confusing name, because the obvious name - Wikimedia! - already stands for some other idea that doesn't actually have a lot to do with media but only wikis. Perhaps Wikimedia (& Wikimedia Foundation) should become Wikimmunity (wiki-community - but it kind of sounds like wiki-immunity :)) and then Commons can take over the Wikimedia label. Otherwise we're looking at "Wikimedia Media"... er... then should MediaWiki be "Wikimedia Wiki"? :)
How about just "wikicommons.org"? We do own the domain name. This would reflect the idea that we, at some point, may want to also serve other wiki communities through tools like InstantCommons. It would be much less of a hassle to perform this rename since many people have called it that from the start, and most references to the project would still be accurate.
-- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 03/07/07, Ilya Haykinson haykinson@gmail.com wrote:
What would be theoretically possible as well is if, say, the WMF got renamed to the "Wiki Foundation", leaving the "Wikimedia" name to the Commons.
Ugh, no. The last thing we want is to further confuse the distinction between us and wikis in general - we have a hard enough time getting the idea across that these aren't our pet invention, as it is.