Re: [Offline-l] Wikimedia Brand Survey

It is a fair question Emmanuel Well, what you say is true. In short, if I summarize super briefly 1) According to Heather, the brand redefinition was a request from the board back in 2015. But there is no mention in board meeting minutes and two former board members do not remember this decision. Note: this was in Lila time. However, it seems indeed that the board confirmed its non-opposition to the communication team to work on that topic in 2018: https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes/2018-11-9,10,11#Branding Note that this does not appear to be a request from the board to the staff, but rather a request from the staff to be allowed to explore. 2) Brand awareness survey done in 7 countries in 2017 showed poor visibility and understanding of the wikimedia brand https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Br… 2) When a survey was done a bit later, the statistical results were displayed in such a way that the case was made from the brand team that there was very little opposition from the community https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communications%2FWikimedia_bra… https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_… Evidence was made that the statistical presentation was broken and misleading. Arguments from opponents to the change include the fact the board members might have been mislead in believing there was no opposition from the community, and thus approved a rebranding without correct context. 3) Following that situation, a RFC was launched by the community, and show an overwelming opposition to replace Wikimedia with Wikipedia in our orgs and projects name. Note that RFC is opt-in only, so might over represent those who oppose the rebranding. Hence the case made for the final survey to poll community members about their position on the matter. Those who want to further explore: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_… 4) The Brand team continued its work. Extensive discussions followed, with face to face brainstorming events to try to identify "good ideas". And key argument to opponants was that it was still in discussion phase etc. Brand network was created to better inform etc., give arguments in favor of the change etc. (I joined it as representant of offline UG to keep track of what was going on) There was further information provided about a month ago during a public meeting, revealing a collection of "words/directions" There were repeated requests from the people following this topic, for the final survey to include the "no change please" option. But this has been dismissed repeatedly. 5) Then finally a new survey (the one I mentionned earlier) was proposed a few days ago with a short list of options. The "no option" is not proposed, and the three options include replacing wikimedia by wikipedia. This is creating social unrest. Best person to know more about that is Andrew Lih. 6) An executive statement was published 2 days ago, stating that a) this rebranding was done per board request, and 2) the rename will happen Quote: *"We should have been clearer: a rebrand will happen. This has already been decided by the Board. The place where we seek consultation and input is on what an optimal rebrand looks like, and what the path to get there will be."* To read full statement : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_moveme… 7) There is a boiling discussion on whether to set up a central banner to invite participants to respond the survey, with community opposition to set up the banner. I have actually been contacted by some staff about this, who were apparently trying to evaluate the level of risk of WMF staff to be unsysoped if they decided the get over the community and activate the banner anyway https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice/Request/Movement_Brand_naming… I am not sure the banner is live yet. At least, I see no banner myself. It should have gone live on the 16th 8) Thus followed much discussion after the executive statement, on telegram and on meta. Probably central place is here : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_m… APPARENTLY, a statement from the board is expected. Unless wrong, it has not been published yet. 9) There is a meeting TONIGHT (21h UTC+2), community organized, on the matter. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/All-Affiliates_Brand_Meeting I'll attend and will try to summarize Should you invest more time on the process ? Good question. I am asking myself the same question. We have a few more days to reflect. Florence Le 18/06/2020 à 09:24, Emmanuel Engelhart a écrit : > Hi Florence > > Thank you for keeping us up-to-date with this process. > > On 17.06.20 20:08, Florence Devouard wrote: >> So, the Brand Team is moving on and has announced a short list of >> proposals to rename Wikimedia Foundation, UG and such to remove the word >> "Wikimedia" > I hope I'm properly informed, but AFAIK there is an extremely strong > majority (almost a consensus) within the community against replacing > "Wikimedia" with "Wikipedia" in our orgs naming. cf. > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_… > > But it seems that the process continues without taking in account the > result of this survey. To me, this seems not fair. > > Considering that offline activities are booming, in particular because > of the Covid19 pandemic and therefore we have a lot to do anyway, I > wonder why exactly I should invest more time on this process?! > > Regards > Emmanuel >