On 5/8/07, Andreas Praefcke bibliopolist@googlemail.com wrote:
To me, "Wikimedia" is the one name to be changed: something completely new may be invented in its place, and pretty much nobody would complain.
Yes, I very much support that, though I think there are very good reasons for a broader rebranding as well.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/voicesw/ps2237/products_qanda_item090...
:-) I think the healthy debate in this thread demonstrates that at least the basics of my proposal are fairly transparent and obvious.
In a recent message, Erik asked for "rational" arguments rather than "emotional" ones. Here's one: IMHO "emotional success with the contributing user" pretty much equals "success" in non-profit grassroot communities like Wikimedia's projects.
Arguably, yes. I am curious how unpopular this change would really be, both initially and after it has sunk in. I'd like to do some basic polling on it, but only after I've heard all the arguments for and against.
Do you believe that, if the projects had started under these names, people would have been less likely to contribute? If so, why?