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(a)gmail.com>om>:
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
Ziko van Dijk
The Netherlands
http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/