Hello, At my user pages (Meta) I have created: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ziko/WM_PR This is a page that lists up some pictures that might be useful for Wikimedia PR. There already is a similar page at Commons (Commons:Press), but * in general, it should be at Meta * the selection at Commons:Press is not very severe * my selection is made explicitly from the perspective of a photographer, journalist or visual media worker. I am afraid that my selection in some cases has been a little bit leniant, still. Now I do the final steps for my manual "Vikipedio por vi" (in Esperanto) which will be published probably soon. So this WM PR page at Meta is in fact a kind of spin off from that manual work. Should WM PR become a simple page outside my user pages, and if yes, how should I name it? Greetings Ziko 2008/8/12 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk(a)googlemail.com>om>: -- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde

Yeah - you're correct if I read correctly, Ziko. Sorry I've been missing in action on this topic, all :) And thanks to Sean and the others for getting the ball rolling. Let me try to lay out the intention here to get your further thoughts before we kick it off. Basically our issue is this: We have lots and lots of related PR material on our public wikis: - Much of it is on meta in the form of one or more PR committee portals or categories - Much of the most significant stuff is on various WP pages, - Lots of visual collateral (vis identity, logos, you name it) is swimming around in WM Commons - The most 'official' Foundation stuff is on wikimediafoundation.org - All of it, I'm fairly sure, was created with the very noblest intentions, and much of it was done with great quality in mind. If we look towards a healthy future for Wikimedia communications/PR it would look like this: - Chapters and 'official' representatives refer to one consistent location on one wiki for sanctioned, up-to-date communications materials they can use to conduct media and official outreach. - media and curious readers can also go to one consistent location for official, up-to-date, high quality materials to learn about wikimedia, wikipedia, and the projects. - Materials would be designed for their situations: - public audiences with basic questions could read up-to-date info on a wiki page, reporters could get great easy to understand stats on the same page - chapters and officials would have access to high quality templates and materials they can update and design to do public outreach work. - The templates could be modified as necessary or translated, then re-posted in the 'public' spaces or on the chapter's own pages. - The core visual identity guidelines and 'official' pieces would not be housed in the same place as the 'public' data, the idea being that those who are acting in official outreach capacities are the ones working with the design materials to do the job right. - The spaces we put stuff 'official' stuff would need to be at least semi-protected - official material will only be considered as such if we communicate that it's not going to suffer vandalism or languish into obsolescence. There is lots of good stuff across the board on the wikis, but we have to figure out where it all is - ALL of it - and then make a decision about what pieces are truly important moving forward. We'll save those pieces, put them in one place (TBD) and we will have to get rid of some of the other materials. I'm not crazy about deleting things, but in our communications world nothing is more important than accurate and timely information. If curious media or public google for info and end up at an outdated photo or schematic on one of our many wikis, then we've got a problem. That being said, I'm also in favor of archiving important work - we'll make a museum or something, and very clearly mark it as such. So here's how I'm hoping the first stages of this process will unfold (I need tech help with this :)... - One - we search for anything and everything related to communications and PR materials. As already laid out, this could include: Templates, PDFs, visual identity stuff, logos, speaking points, press releases, media clips, how-to PR stuff, backgrounders, Q/A, speeches, photos (events, portraits, official etc). - Two - we tag anything that isn't on the WMF wiki with something that simply says "this page/file may be relocated in the near future to a central repository of PR/Communications material" - Three - we link all of those pages onto the temporary Meta page Sean has created and we determine which stuff is still important, which needs help, and which as to go away. - Four - we figure out, from the pieces left, what is pure public material and what is 'planning' or official use material. - Five - we will likely create an official space for collaboration of chapters/WMF staff related to PR on the internal wiki (still TBD) - Six - we'll build a great space on the WMF wiki that incorporates the most important WP and WM project PR material into one place - a place we can watch like a hawk, update vigorously, and translate liberally. As it makes sense the chapters can also put their relevant materials here so we can reflect their work and have accurately and sensibly translated pieces. Steps one to three are the first stages - it's big work, and it's what I'd like comproj to focus on for the next few months. One of the major drivers for this project is related to trademark polishing and visual identity. Basically the WP globe, other project logos, and the WMF logos are being used all over the place in a variety of quasi official, excellent, and in some cases, terrible ways. We need to find the best ones and fix the worst ones. This doesn't mean we will take away users' ability to use the trademarks completely, but it does mean that we need to enforce quality, approved use and start setting a great example of trademark respect (that's a significant part of my job). As you're all probably aware, our trademark is worth a lot of money - but that's just a small part of the equation. If the trademark gets routinely abused people will not assume that it's copyrighted. Wikipedia and WM project content is largely free, but our logos and trademarks are NOT. We don't want people to A) make money off of their abuse of our logos when -we- could direct those funds back into the Foundation and B) miscommunicate their personal, corporate, or organizational relationship to WMF or WP when in all likelihood they do not have one. Imagine if a political campaign just used the WP globe in an ad or on their website because their candidate has a WP page? Perception of NPOV is right out the window. That's another big topic :) But I wanted to raise it here because it's a major part of this clean-up initiative. Going forward I want to be much more available to work with volunteers, chapters, and outside organizations in approving use of the WP or other project logos. I also want to provide ALL of our design materials at the foundation to approved parties so they can exude the same look and feel as us - because we trust those who have the permission to use our marks. That is one loooong email, especially coming from a north american- based foundation on labor day :) We can discuss some or all of these details further (I promise I'll stay on top of the list). I know some of you will have caveats or cautions about this, I want to hear them. We can set a 'start date' in the next few days I hope, and start by focussing on pointing our scanners on meta, WP, WMF wiki, and another other wikis where PR materials can be found. Can someone develop a cross-wiki reference tag to get us started? Again - this tag should -only- be used for pages/material that are NOT on the WMF wiki. That stuff is doing official work right now, we don't want to imply it is questionable (I'm pretty sure I've got all the stuff there under control). Looking forward to hearing from you - this project is a critical step for our long-term communications strategy - it is by no means lower- shelf business. It's hard, necessary work for a wiki organization that has demonstrated a huge capacity for creativity and creation! Thanks! -- Jay Walsh Head of Communications WikimediaFoundation.org +1 (415) 839 6885 x 609 On Aug 12, 2008, at 1:08 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:

Seen from a problem oriented approach: * Journalists find it difficult to find the relevant stuff. They don't like to search through 100 pics at Commons (if they find them at all) to find the 3, 4 relevant or interesting of, say, Wikimania 2008. * Wikipedians from a new or small Wikipedia/chapter mostly start from the very beginnings when they need a flyer or booklet. Partly, because those existing are not perfect or don't give them the necessary freedom, partly, because they don't find them. * Those who produce PR relevant materials (Commons contributors etc.) put their stuff on meta or commons with little coordination or guidance. Other problems that I forgot? At a German Wikimedia convention (fundraising, Feb. this year) I said that some things can be done on wiki base very well, others need a more traditional style treatment in a association with work groups. We must move some work from WikiPedia to WikiMedia. This may be unpleasant to some who have very strong believes in the open and transparent and uncompelling wiki way. Ziko P.S.: It would be ideal if a Wikipedian who wants to promote e.g. Asturian Wikipedia can simply go through a procedure similar to ordering a photo album from a post order company. Wanna booklet size 1, size or size 3 (= how much the printing will cost)? Color, b/w? A more informational or a more educational variety? Then the activist will be asked to translate texts, and if necessary someone from Wikimedia will assemble a PDF. So the activist does not have to invent the wheel by himself. 2008/9/1 Sean Whitton <sean(a)silentflame.com>om>: -- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde

Jay Walsh wrote: Do it the wiki way, keep it archived as a museum, don't delete. What about wikipedia screenshots? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Copyright_by_Wikimedia is full of... well, almost everything. From logos intended for wiki use (to commemorate the wiki's Nth article, birthday, or simply to look nicer), to toolbar buttons, through on a range of foundation/chapter material. Of those, i find screenshots between the most annoying. They're constantly being made (articles about web browsers, OS, tutorials...) and they almost always have the logo on the top left, thus making it not free. Do we even care to replace it or photoshop the image? No way, we simply place a {{CopyrightbyWikimedia}} and go along. *We* can use it, so why bother? I modified {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} a year ago so it can categorise images on lower ones, but didn't really reorganise it. We should also tag material available at wikimediafoundation.org 'You can see this here, but the relevant content is at wikimediafoundation.org/X' Also, it'd be interesting to keep an eye on the wikipedia articles. Wikipedia should have the best informatona available about Wikimedia and its projects, but i have already found information completely outdated on [[en:Mediawiki]]. Given that wikipedia will be the first place a foreginer will look searching for the WMF (maybe they're even searching for 'Wikipedia Foundation'!!), so all wikipedias should prominently link to wikimediafoundation.org and the designed portal for official info.