On Tue, May 8, 2007 12:57, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
If it ain't broke, don't fix it?
is answered by Yann Forget:
Nowadays I participate in many Wikimedia projects, and I think it important not to mix up things which are different.
As Walter Vermeir notes:
Wikimedia is the grant umbrella that connects all wikis of all projects and languages. It is the glue between all wikis.
but, as Eric's original post on our branding pointed out, the vast majority of *readers* do not understand about our multiple projects that are all under that single umbrella and hence they don't make use of the sister projects to anything like the same degree. And if our editors are building walls between the projects then is it any surprise that the media and non-editing readers get completely muddled about things?
"Wiki..." naming was great when we started. Wikis were new, unusual, fantastic opportunities to get involved and we had a najor first-mover advantage. But using that format for the newer projects hasn't worked so well; they don't get the pull-along effect that they should from their association with 'the big one'. Yes, of course I like everyone else would like to see *all* the projects become massive successes; each language, each context. But until it is clear to people that we are all together in this - that Wikispecies, Wiktionary, Wikinews and the rest *are* under that same umbrella that Wikipedia is - then readers will not use them in the same way and they will, imho, be destined to remain in the shade of Wikipedia.
Wikia gets tied up with people thinking about Wiki(m|p)edia projects precisely because of that naming decision (accident?), as do WikitionaryZ, Wikitravel, etc.
Editors, unsurprisingly, become somewhat possessive of their efforts (I do too!) but if we are serious about wanting to create a 'reference shelf' then I believe Eric's post - and the subsequent discussions - have clear merit. I believe we do not want not desire the 'other' projects to have a separate identity and target audience, we want them to be seen as part of a greater whole. And whilst "Wikimedia" was intended to be the title of that 'umbrella whole' it is failing to reach the mass audience, instead every time one of us talks to the press or gives a talk or writes about "Wikimedia" we have to explicitly clarify and link that name to "... the people who run Wikipedia ...".
It will cause problems in the short term, obviously, but maybe we do need to think more clearly about the future context we operate in; we are not a range of social groups who happen to be working on our individual projects and ignoring the rest (or *should* not be, anyway) but are a larger group of people working, pro bono, to "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." If we are truly creating that "sum" of knowledge then we need a better way to let everyone know all our projects are together.
"That's our commitment" as our strapline states.
Alison Wheeler