Andreas Praefcke wrote:
I just cannot see how Erik's proposal should help with his main issue which I would rather describe as "Wikimedia" being the weakest of names, especially since "Wikipedia" and "MediaWiki" are out there and very, very well known.
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. Apart from some hardcore Wikipedians/Wikimedians and maybe a couple of sponsors, I don't think anyone knows the name at all. And those that know could most easily adopt a catchier name. Preferably something nice and fluffy that could be put on a T-shirt and made into a stuffed animal...
As to Erik's proposal, it reminds me of some of the marketing-driven naming and renaming schemes that do not care too much about usability and "catchiness". We might even end up with a mess like the following (recommended reading if you want to be sure to get a headache within 2 minutes):
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/voicesw/ps2237/products_qanda_item090...
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.
Regards
- Andreas Praefcke
I could not have said it better. Volunteers are the heart and soul of Wikimedia projects, and brands for volunteer groups have substantially different needs than for-profit joint stock corporations. You should not be using the same business model for describing the two different kinds of thinking.