Hello friends
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"
Yesterday, the Team presented the results of their thinking during a live youtube session. It is one hour long, but the presentation itself is less than 30 minutes. Then followed by questions.
To know more about the three propositions, the page to go to : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movemen...
The Brand team also launched yesterday a new survey to measure our support to this new branding scheme.
We are invited to participate to this survey in two capacities 1. as individuals 2. as affiliate
And quite naturally, we can also react, discuss etc in the above mentionned talk page, on mailing lists, telegram etc.
Taking the survey as individual is your own decision. Deadline June 30th
However, answering as an affiliate is a slighly more complicated thing to do.
So I reported that in a wiki page, where we can collect feedback from you and try to answer in the name of the group, if relevant. Roughly... if there is a general agreement... it will be easy to respond in the name of the offline UG If there is no clear agreement... we'll have to reflect on what to do
But the first step in any cases is to actually record your thoughts on the matter.
Steps for you... 1) if you are not aware of the topic, and arguments behind the proposition ----> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movemen... 2) if you would like to read some feedback from the community, check this : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_c... 3) to read the proposals : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movemen... 4) to watch the youtube session : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3zlBGHHHiY 5) to take the survey as an individual : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movemen... 6) to reflect with the group: here by email or there : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Offline_Projects/Mouvement_Brand_Project
Thanks
Anthere
I can imagine "Wiki" and "Wikigroup", but none of the other options really resonate. "...part of the Wikimedia family of projects". and something like "WikiFoundation" could work for taglines and the global org name. The movement could not be the Wiki Movement unless we start supporting *all* wiki tools (though that would be pretty great - we could actually do that now!).
My quick thoughts.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:08 PM Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org wrote:
Hello friends
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"
Yesterday, the Team presented the results of their thinking during a live youtube session. It is one hour long, but the presentation itself is less than 30 minutes. Then followed by questions.
To know more about the three propositions, the page to go to :
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movemen...
The Brand team also launched yesterday a new survey to measure our support to this new branding scheme.
We are invited to participate to this survey in two capacities
- as individuals
- as affiliate
And quite naturally, we can also react, discuss etc in the above mentionned talk page, on mailing lists, telegram etc.
Taking the survey as individual is your own decision. Deadline June 30th
However, answering as an affiliate is a slighly more complicated thing to do.
So I reported that in a wiki page, where we can collect feedback from you and try to answer in the name of the group, if relevant. Roughly... if there is a general agreement... it will be easy to respond in the name of the offline UG If there is no clear agreement... we'll have to reflect on what to do
But the first step in any cases is to actually record your thoughts on the matter.
Steps for you...
- if you are not aware of the topic, and arguments behind the
proposition ---->
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movemen... 2) if you would like to read some feedback from the community, check this :
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_c... 3) to read the proposals :
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movemen... 4) to watch the youtube session : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3zlBGHHHiY 5) to take the survey as an individual :
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movemen... 6) to reflect with the group: here by email or there : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Offline_Projects/Mouvement_Brand_Project
Thanks
Anthere
Offline-l mailing list Offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/offline-l
Hey Sj
Make sure you read the proposals very carefully. You'll find out that the 3 proposed proposals all provide the same name for the Wikimedia Foundation. Which is the Wikipedia Foundation. According to the rumors, this is basically decided.
Of course, that should not prevent us to propose names of replacement for WMF. Or to propose Wikimedia Foundation to replace Wikimedia Foundation (hmm, actually, no change then).
This being said... I rather agree with you. The option 3 (wiki etc.) sounds like the "least bad" to me, though none of the options really reasonate.
Flo
Le 18/06/2020 à 02:50, Samuel Klein a écrit :
I can imagine "Wiki" and "Wikigroup", but none of the other options really resonate. "...part of the Wikimedia family of projects". and something like "WikiFoundation" could work for taglines and the global org name. The movement could not be the Wiki Movement unless we start supporting /all/ wiki tools (though that would be pretty great - we could actually do that now!).
My quick thoughts.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:08 PM Florence Devouard <anthere@anthere.org mailto:anthere@anthere.org> wrote:
Hello friends 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" Yesterday, the Team presented the results of their thinking during a live youtube session. It is one hour long, but the presentation itself is less than 30 minutes. Then followed by questions. To know more about the three propositions, the page to go to : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Naming_convention_proposals The Brand team also launched yesterday a new survey to measure our support to this new branding scheme. We are invited to participate to this survey in two capacities 1. as individuals 2. as affiliate And quite naturally, we can also react, discuss etc in the above mentionned talk page, on mailing lists, telegram etc. Taking the survey as individual is your own decision. Deadline June 30th However, answering as an affiliate is a slighly more complicated thing to do. So I reported that in a wiki page, where we can collect feedback from you and try to answer in the name of the group, if relevant. Roughly... if there is a general agreement... it will be easy to respond in the name of the offline UG If there is no clear agreement... we'll have to reflect on what to do But the first step in any cases is to actually record your thoughts on the matter. Steps for you... 1) if you are not aware of the topic, and arguments behind the proposition ----> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project 2) if you would like to read some feedback from the community, check this : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia 3) to read the proposals : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Naming_convention_proposals 4) to watch the youtube session : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3zlBGHHHiY 5) to take the survey as an individual : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Naming_convention_proposals 6) to reflect with the group: here by email or there : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Offline_Projects/Mouvement_Brand_Project Thanks Anthere _______________________________________________ Offline-l mailing list Offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/offline-l-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
Offline-l mailing list Offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/offline-l
Florence Devouard, 18/06/20 04:16:
Of course, that should not prevent us to propose names of replacement for WMF. Or to propose Wikimedia Foundation to replace Wikimedia Foundation (hmm, actually, no change then).
Makes sense. It seems there are no ideas for a better name of the user group, so confirming "Wikimedians for offline wikis" seems logical.
Federico
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_c...
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
Florence - yes, I see that.
Emmanuel - No need to spend much time on this process; but a quick filling out of the survey indicating dissatisfaction with every option will help close off this possibility for creative use of statistics.
For those who do want to discuss this briefly w/ other affiliates (rather than w/ staff), see my following message.
Warmly, S
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 3:24 AM Emmanuel Engelhart kelson@kiwix.org wrote:
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_c...
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
-- Kiwix - Wikipedia Offline & more
- Web: https://kiwix.org/
- Twitter: https://twitter.com/KiwixOffline
- Wiki: https://wiki.kiwix.org/
Offline-l mailing list Offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/offline-l
In two hours (at 0500 CEST) and tomorrow (2100 Sunday), there will be a community discussion of the proposed Wikimedia rebrand, organized by some affiliates (not by the WMF). I'll be there.
We are meeting in part to confirm that there is no silent group of affiliates who are enthusiastic about the change. [One of the early statistics presented was of a large number of 'supportive' affiliates, where the support seems to have been "sure, work through this process if it is a sincere collaboration on finding good new names".]
Last post by me on this topic; back to regularly scheduled offlining, SJ
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com Date: Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:31 PM Subject: [All-affiliates] June 21 All-Affiliates Brand Meeting To: Wikimedia Affiliates all-affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org
All Wikimedia affiliates are invited to join an urgent meeting on the Brand Project in two sessions on Sunday June 21, regarding the most recent developments. This has been proposed and discussed on the "Wiki User Groups Affiliates" Telegram channel.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/All-Affiliates_Brand_Meeting
3:00 UTC (Asia-Pacific friendly time - https://zonestamp.com/1592708427) https://meet.google.com/mff-bsiy-tvd
19:00 UTC (Europe-Africa-Americas friendly time - https://zonestamp.com/1592766035) https://meet.google.com/hjq-ptwx-aex
Please see proposed agenda, and sign up with your affiliate here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/All-Affiliates_Brand_Meeting
Thanks, Richard (User:Pharos) _______________________________________________ All-affiliates mailing list All-affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/all-affiliates
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/Bra...
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_bran... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_c... 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_c...
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_movemen...
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_mo... 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_c...
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
Hi
Thank you Florence & Sj for your feedbacks and additional information.
This was necessary to me but they confirm my personal primary feelings.
I had the belief that the current WMF mgmt (board?) would at least avoid this kind of mistake. I have to admit I was wrong. It looks like there is a kind of pattern at the WMF which transcends the ages & persons.
I have invested 20mn to fill the survey anyway.
Emmanuel
On 21.06.20 19:40, Florence Devouard wrote:
It is a fair question Emmanuel
Well, what you say is true. In short, if I summarize super briefly
- 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.
- 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/Bra...
- 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_bran... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_c... 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.
- 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_c...
- 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.
- 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.
- 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_movemen...
- 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
- 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_mo... APPARENTLY, a statement from the board is expected. Unless wrong, it has not been published yet.
- 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_c...
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