I also think that there are some branding issues, but let me focus just in the opposite way: Wikimedia is not a bug, is a feature. When you say you represent WikiMedia, then someone asks about why an M ad not a P and gives you the opportunity to talk about our free knowledge ecosystem, that is not about an Encyclopedia, is much more. So deleting the M from the equation would vanish even more our sister projects.
On the other hand, think that maybe in 2022 (for example) we could create a new project based entirely on videos with free content from Wikipedia and Commons, that could be the best project by 2030... and we call it Wikivideo. Would still be a good idea to be called Wikivideo, a project by the Wikipedia Foundation, or would we start thinking on calling ourselves The Wikivideo Foundation? I think that being Wikimedia gives us better opportunities to make better decisions on our products than identifying totally with one of the products.
And I think there are branding issues, yes, but this are not on the name, but on the product and the logo families. ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Strainu strainu10@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:56 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
Pe marți, 9 aprilie 2019, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com a scris:
At the occasion, we should also reconsider the expressions "chapter" and "user group". "Chapter" is more suitable for local divisions of a national association. And "user group" sounds just like some group. We also already have "user group" as a technical term in MediaWiki.
You may be aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about this issue, albeit at a broader level :)
For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need to support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)
One would hope that both that group as well as others will be informed and will take into account the results of the study, which confirm anecdotic data that almost anyone doing outreach knows.
This is not a matter to be left at the foundation's sole discretion (although I personally approve the proposals to various degrees).
Strainu
You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or indeed the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much more profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently exist.
Thanks,
Chris
(1) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_ Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities#Scoping_questions _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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