Hi Nemo, you are not very specific - the discussion on Strategory you are linking to contains a lot of good reasons provided by Dedalus. Indeed, if you talk to the press, or to media experts, they all know "Wikipedia" but not "Wikimedia". The most simple and reasonable way is to use the famous brand, not to invest in "Wikimedia".
With regard to the sister projects, I feel a lot of vigorous emotions but no arguments. Ziko
2011/7/2 Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com:
There are much more "meta-wikis" that could be merged: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_wikis#Organizational_and_planning_projects
Ziko van Dijk, 02/07/2011 00:14:
But in those sister projects communities, I have met fierce resistance to any new branding or technical rearrangement. They even tend to avoid to associate themselves with Wikipedia. They want to grow on their own appeal and strengh. (They also are annoyed when Wikipedians come to a sister project and don't learn immediately that the rules differ.)
And with good reason. See also http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Brand_name_consolidation (this is a perennial proposal).
Nemo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l