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(a)lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of Strainu
<strainu10(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>