Perhaps you do, but do the volunteer communities of the projects you would like to rename share this enthusiasm? Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Dennis During Sent: 14 March 2020 00:20 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
I, for one, welcome Wikipedia Dictionary, Wikipedia Source, Wikipedia Species, Wikipedia Commons.
Why is it, though, that others go the other way? like American Airlines subordinating to AMR, Google to Alphabet. Citibank went in a direction the opposite of the way that WMF is going, with Citi becoming a prefix with multiple uses.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 3:48 PM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Although Mike and I have differences of opinion about centralizing on the "Wikipedia" brand, one way in which I agree with Mike is that there are ways to have branding discussions that are not themselves controversial. Even if consensus was not reached, I for one would be more accepting of the process.
Some departments in WMF seem to be more on board with regards to process than others. In particular, I think that Audiences these days generally does a good job, and also I like Tech News.
Outside of WMF, the Wikidata team at WMDE produces very informative newsletters each week. They seem to do good work without spending money on outside consultants.
So, why all of these issues in WMF Communications? I don't get it.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe